For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.

1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

Gas heating dynamics during leader

inception in long air gaps at
atmospheric pressure
Lipeng Liu1 and Marley Becerra
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, School of Electrical Engineering, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
1
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

E-mail: lipeng@kth.se and marley@kth.se

Abstract
The inception of leader discharges in long air gaps at atmospheric pressure is
simulated with a thermo-hydrodynamic model and a detailed kinetic scheme for
N2/O2/H2O mixtures. In order to investigate the effect of humidity, the kinetic
scheme includes the most important reactions with the H2O molecule and its
derivatives, resulting in a scheme with 45 species and 192 chemical reactions. The
heating of a thin plasma channel in front of an anode electrode during the streamer
to leader transition is evaluated with a detailed 1D radial model. The analysis
includes the simulation of the corresponding streamer bursts, dark periods and
aborted leaders that may occur prior to the inception of a propagating leader
discharge. The simulations are performed using the time-varying discharge current
in two laboratory discharge events of positive polarity reported in the literature as
input. Excellent agreement between the simulated and the experimental time
variation of the thermal radius for a 1m rod-plate air gap discharge event reported
in the literature has been found. The role of different energy transfer and loss
mechanisms prior to the inception of a stable leader is also discussed. It is found
that although a small percentage of water molecules can accelerate the vibrational-
translational relaxation to some extent, this effect leads to a negligible temperature
increase during the streamer-to-leader transition. It is also found that the gas
temperature should significantly exceed 2000 K for the transition to lead to the
inception of a propagating leader. Otherwise, the strong convection loss produced
by the gas expansion during the transition causes a drop in the translational
temperature below 2000 K, aborting the incepted leader. Furthermore, it is shown
that the assumptions used by the widely-used model of Gallimberti do not hold
when evaluating the streamer-to-leader transition.

Keywords: streamer-to-leader transition, kinetic model, streamer corona, leader

discharge, humidity effect

as blue jets and gigantic jets [5, 6]. A leader is a highly

1. Introduction
Leader discharges are the main breakdown mechanism in
long air gaps (≳ 1 m). They are present in laboratory
discharges [1, 2], natural and artificial lightning [3, 4] and
in transient luminous events in the upper atmosphere such
1
ionized, conductive and thermal channel with a temperature
ranging between 2000 and 6000 K [7]. Due to the low
electric field along the leader channel, acting as an
elongation of the electrode into the gap, streamer corona is
formed at its tip.
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
unstable leader inception
+
stem
1st 2nd
aborted leader
streamer corona
applied voltage
Figure 1. Conceptual sketch of the streak image of leader inception and propagation with the corresponding applied
voltage and discharge current in laboratory experiments. Adapted from [1, 2, 8, 9].
In 1970s, the Les Renardières group conducted
extensive laboratory experiments aiming to provide
experience and guidance to the design of external insulation
of ultra-high voltage (UHV) power systems [8, 10-12]. As a
result, the inception and propagation of positive leader
discharges in laboratory has been described as a series of
chronological events schematically represented in figure 1.
At first, one or several streamer discharges may occur, with
dark periods in between. No current is recorded during the
dark periods. If the stem of any of these streamers becomes
thermalized, a leader channel segment can be initiated. If
the electrostatic conditions in front of the newly formed
leader are sufficient, it may continue propagating into the
gap. Otherwise, its temperature will decay and the leader
will be aborted. The breakdown of the gap takes place once
the leader has propagated sufficiently such that the streamer
corona at its head reaches the opposite electrode. The
inception and propagation of negative leaders are different
from that of positive leaders. As discussed in [13], the
streamer-to-leader transition is the fundamental process of
both positive and negative leaders. However, here only the
streamer-to-leader transition during the inception and
propagation of positive leaders is analysed.
In long air gaps, gas heating occurs in front of the
anode electrode by streamers initiated before the inception
of leaders as well as by streamers converging at the head of
an advancing leader. Thus, the heating of air prior to leader
inception takes place under a time-varying current, while it
develops under a rather stationary current during leader
propagation [13]. Even though the air heating process
during the leader propagation has been widely studied in
the literature [6, 13-15], the thermalization mechanisms
before leader initiation is less understood.
The process of air heating before any propagating
leader discharge is formed is here referred to as the
streamer-to-leader transition. This process starts by the
sudden contraction of the streamer current into a small-
2
leader propagation breakdown
discharge current
time
radius stem due to a thermal-ionizational instability [14-
16]. The stem is then heated by the current produced by the
filaments within the streamer corona zone. The stem of the
streamer corona becomes thermalized when it reaches a
temperature larger than about 1 500~2 000 K, initiating a
leader discharge [1, 7, 16].
The mechanism of gas heating during this transition is
important to revisit due to at least three important reasons.
First, the effect of the humidity has not been taken into
account in the latest detailed physical models of the gas
heating [6, 13, 15]. At standard temperature and pressure
(STP) conditions, the concentration of water molecule
(H2O) can reach up to 3% (~22 g m−3 ). It seems that such
a low percentage of H2O can hardly affect the whole
discharge processes. However, experiments indicate that
humidity does play an important role in breakdown [8, 17].
Second, recent numerical models of UHV design and
lightning performance evaluation [18-21] use the
thermalization model derived by Gallimberti [1, 8] to
evaluate the streamer to leader transition. However, his
model includes several simplifications that have been
challenged by later studies (e.g. [14, 22]). Even though
some amendments to Gallimberti’s model has been recently
suggested to study gas dynamics during leader inception
[22], no improvement of its simplified zero-dimensional
(0D) kinetic scheme has been made in this paper [22].
Third, experiments with Schlieren photography [9] have
recently shown that a single solitary stem is not necessarily
formed before a leader is incepted under switching voltage
waveforms. Instead, several stems connected to the
electrode can be produced onset streamers, through which
the discharge current is shared. This experimental fact
shows that the existing models of the transition
overestimate the electric power input for gas heating when
assuming only a single stem.
Thus, the aim of this paper is to develop a state-of-the-
art thermo-hydrodynamic model with a detailed kinetic
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
scheme to investigate the streamer-to-leader transition,
including the effect of humidity. In the simulation, the
transition is driven by the time-varying discharge current
measured in two laboratory discharge events reported in
[9]. These two events are used as case studies. The outline
of the rest of this paper is as follows. The model and
method are described in section 2. The case studies are
described and analysed in section 3. In section 4, the effect
of humidity on the streamer-to-leader transition is discussed
and the comparison between our model and the widely used
model of Gallimberti is presented. The conclusions are
summarized in section 5.
2. Model and method formulation
2.1. The thermal hydrodynamic model
In this paper, a one-dimensional thermo-hydrodynamic
model based on Popov [15] and da Silva [13] is used to
describe the dynamics of the streamer-to-leader transition.
The set of gas dynamics equations used in the model is
given by
𝜕𝜕𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗
+ ∇ ∙ �𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗 𝒖𝒖𝒋𝒋 − 𝐷𝐷𝑗𝑗 ∇𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗 � = 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝒗𝒗 1 from [13].
+ ∇ ∙ (𝜌𝜌𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗) = −∇𝑃𝑃 + 𝜇𝜇𝑣𝑣 ∇(∇ ∙ 𝒗𝒗) + 𝜇𝜇𝑣𝑣 ∇2 𝒗𝒗
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 3
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
+ ∇ ∙ [(𝜀𝜀 + 𝑃𝑃)𝒗𝒗] = 𝑄𝑄Teff + ∇ ∙ (𝜅𝜅 𝑇𝑇∗ ∇𝑇𝑇)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝜀𝜀V
+ ∇ ∙ (𝜀𝜀V 𝒗𝒗) = 𝑄𝑄Veff + ∇ ∙ (𝐷𝐷𝑉𝑉 ∇𝜀𝜀V ) (4)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation (1) is the transport equation for each jth
considered species including electrons, neutrals and their
excited states, positive ions and negative ions. 𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗 and 𝒖𝒖𝒋𝒋 are
the number density and velocity of jth species. 𝐷𝐷𝑗𝑗 is the
diffusion coefficient. 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗 is the reaction term accounting for
all the chemical reactions as later discussed in section 2.2.
Equations (2)-(4) describe the transport of momentum
(𝜌𝜌𝒗𝒗), the overall translational energy density of neutral gas
(𝜀𝜀) and the vibrational energy density of N2 molecules (𝜀𝜀V ).
𝒗𝒗 is the bulk velocity of the neutral gas. 𝜌𝜌 is the mass
density defined as the sum over all neutral species, i.e.,
𝜌𝜌 = ∑𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖 where 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 and 𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖 are the mass and number
density of ith neutral species. The parameters 𝜀𝜀 and 𝜀𝜀V are
calculated as
1 1
𝜀𝜀 = 𝑃𝑃 + 𝜌𝜌𝒗𝒗2 (5)
𝛾𝛾 − 1 2 added to consume N2 O which is produced by the
𝑛𝑛N2 ℏ𝜛𝜛
𝜀𝜀V =
exp(ℏ𝜛𝜛⁄𝑘𝑘B 𝑇𝑇V ) − 1
where 𝛾𝛾 is the ratio of specific heat and 𝑃𝑃 the gas pressure.
ℏ𝜛𝜛 = 0.29 eV is the vibrational quantum of N2 molecule
and 𝑘𝑘B is the Boltzman constant. 𝑇𝑇V is the vibrational
temperature of N2 to account for the non-equilibrium effect.
The equilibrium between the translational and rotational
degrees of freedom of all other species is assumed to be
instantaneously reached due to their much lower
concentration and much faster speed of vibrational-
translational energy relaxation. 𝜇𝜇𝑣𝑣 is the viscosity
coefficient and 𝜅𝜅T∗ describes the thermal conductivity
without the contribution of vibrationally excited N2
molecules. 𝐷𝐷𝑉𝑉 is the diffusion coefficient of 𝜀𝜀V . 𝑄𝑄Teff and
𝑄𝑄Veff are the effective rate of energy deposition in the
translational and vibrational degrees of freedom,
respectively, and are defined in section 2.3. 𝑇𝑇 is the gas
temperature computed from the state equation 𝑃𝑃 = 𝑁𝑁𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵 𝑇𝑇,
where 𝑁𝑁 is the neutral gas density defined as the sum over
all neutral species, i.e., 𝑁𝑁 = ∑𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖 . Even though the specific
heat 𝛾𝛾 is usually assumed independent of gas temperature,
it is here defined according to
𝛾𝛾0 − 1
𝛾𝛾 = 1 +
Θ 2 exp(Θ/𝑇𝑇) (7)
1 + (𝛾𝛾0 − 1) � �
𝑇𝑇 [exp(Θ/𝑇𝑇) − 1]2
where 𝛾𝛾0 = 1.4 is the specific heat ratio of air and Θ =
(1)
3056 K [23]. The values of 𝜇𝜇𝑣𝑣 , 𝜅𝜅T∗ , 𝐷𝐷𝑗𝑗 and 𝐷𝐷𝑉𝑉 are taken
(2) In this paper, air with different H2 O concentrations (0
to 3%) is modelled while keeping the ratio of N2 and O2
concentration constant as 79:21. The concentration ranging
(3)
from 0% to 3% corresponds to absolute humidity levels of
dry air and saturated air at STP conditions (𝑇𝑇0 =
300 K , 𝑃𝑃0 = 1.035 × 105 Pa and 𝑁𝑁0 = 2.5 × 1019 cm−3 ).
2.2. Kinetic model of N2/O2/H2O mixtures
2.2.1. General description
A N2/O2/H2O mixture is used to model humid air. As a
combination and extension of the kinetic model given in
[13], [24] and [25], 45 species listed in table 1 are
considered to participate in 192 chemical reactions (R1-
R192) as listed in table A1 of the appendix.
Several principles are used to guide the selection of
species and chemical reactions and their reaction rates.
First, only those that have been demonstrated in the
literature to be important for air heating are included.
Second, it is ensured that each species has at least one
reaction to produce it and at least one to consume it. In this
way, the reactions are self-closed. For example, reactions
R77 and R78 which are not considered in [13] and [24] are
detachment reaction R9. Third, all the reaction rates have
been carefully checked with their original papers and cross-
(6)
checked with different sources. In this way, the most
reliable and accurate rates are defined. For sake of
conciseness, the references are given as the aforementioned
three papers ([13], [24] and [25]), not the original sources,
unless new reactions and rates are introduced.
3
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

Table 1. Species considered in the numerical model

Electron Neutrals Excited electronic states* Positive ions Negative ions

NO+ , O+ + + +
2 , O4 , O2 N2 , O ,
N2 , O2 , O, N, NO, O3 , + + + + O− , O− −
2 , O3 ,
O2 (𝑎𝑎), O2 (𝑏𝑏), N2 (𝐴𝐴), N2 (𝐵𝐵), N2 , N4 , H2 O , H3 O , − −
𝑒𝑒 NO2 , N2 O, H2 O, OH, OH , H ,
N2 (𝑎𝑎′), N2 (𝐶𝐶), O(1 D), O(1 S), N(2 D) O+
2 (H2 O),
H, H2 , HO2 , H2 O2 O−
2 (H2 O)𝑛𝑛,𝑛𝑛≤3
H3 O+ (H2 O)𝑛𝑛,𝑛𝑛≤3

Notes: *The excited electronic states O2 �a1 ∆g �, O2 �b1 Σg+ �, N2 (A3 Σu+ ), N2 �B3 Πg �, N2 (a′1 Σu− )and N2 (C3 Πu ) are represented by
simplified notation as O2 (𝑎𝑎), O2 (𝑏𝑏) , N2 (𝐴𝐴), N2 (𝐵𝐵), N2 (𝑎𝑎′) and N2 (𝐶𝐶), respectively.
Special efforts are made to take into account the effect
of the H2 O molecule. In addition to the reactions listed in
[24], the three-body attachment of H2 O with O2 and
electrons (R30) is added since their reaction rate is much
total
higher than that of O2 (R27) [25, 26]. Besides, water power
clusters such as O2+ (H2 O), H3 O+ (H2 O)𝑛𝑛 and O2− (H2 O)𝑛𝑛 are
included in our kinetic model (R176-R192) since they are
electronic
considered to play important roles [1, 25, 27]. These power
clusters are involved, for example, in the electron-ion
recombination (R37-R42) and the detachment of O− 2 (R14-
R18). Note that the reaction rates of the formation and

electronic states
decomposition of water cluster ions H3 O+ (H2 O)𝑛𝑛 (R181-

excitation of
R186) are dependent on gas pressure and the effective ion
temperature (or the reduced electric field). Since the ion

elastic collisions
temperature is much higher than 1000 K in the cases
ionic power

considered in the paper, only the rates at the low pressure

limit in [28] are used.
When evaluating air heating in [13], the positive ions
N2+ , N4+ and O+ are assumed to readily convert into O+
2
since this process takes place within nanoseconds under the
STP condition. However, these reactions (R138-R144) are
here considered since the characteristic time of positive ion
conversion of N2+ , N4+ and O+ with O2 has the same order of
magnitude as for the electron-ion recombination [27].
Further description of the rate coefficients and factors used
in the model are given in the appendix.
2.2.2. Electron source terms
Electrons are the most important species in electrical
discharges. The source term 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗 ( cm−3 s −1 ) in equation (1)
for electrons can be computed as
𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒 = 𝑆𝑆ion + 𝑆𝑆step + 𝑆𝑆assoc + 𝑆𝑆det
(8)
−𝑆𝑆att2 − 𝑆𝑆att3 − 𝑆𝑆rec
where 𝑆𝑆ion the electron-impact ionization (R1-R3), 𝑆𝑆step the
stepwise ionization (R4-R5), 𝑆𝑆assoc the associative
ionization (R6-R8), 𝑆𝑆det the electron detachment of
negative ions (R9-R22), 𝑆𝑆att2 the two-body attachment
(R23-R26), 𝑆𝑆att3 the three-body attachment (R27-R30) and
𝑆𝑆rec the electron-ion recombination (R31-R42).
4
fast heating
30%
2
Figure 2. Conceptual energy flow chart during electrical
discharges.
2.3. Energy transfer and relaxation
2.3.1. Energy transfer
The Joule heating power (per unit volume) produced by
charged species drifting under the electric field 𝐸𝐸 is
𝑄𝑄 = 𝜎𝜎𝐸𝐸 2 = (𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖 + 𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒 )𝐸𝐸 2 , where 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖 and 𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒 are the ion and
electron conductivities. The processes of energy exchange
deposited by the charged species into the translational and
vibrational degrees of freedom in equation (3) and (4) are
illustrated in figure 2 following [13]. The ionic power 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 is
assumed to be transferred directly into translational degrees
of freedom. The electronic power 𝑄𝑄𝑒𝑒 is partitioned into
three parts, the elastic collisions 𝑄𝑄L , the excitation of
electronic states 𝑄𝑄E and the excitation of vibrational states
𝑄𝑄V . The partition ratios of electronic power into 𝑄𝑄L , 𝑄𝑄E and
𝑄𝑄V are defined as 𝜂𝜂L , 𝜂𝜂E and 𝜂𝜂V , respectively. 𝑄𝑄R accounts
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

for the radiation power loss here roughly estimated with the
net emission coefficient model [29]. 𝑄𝑄VT corresponds to the
vibrational-translational relaxation, 𝑄𝑄VV to the relaxation
from upper vibrational levels and 𝑄𝑄D to the relaxation to
thermal dissociation, later described in section 2.3.2.
Following the method introduced in [6], the partition
ratios of electronic power 𝜂𝜂L , 𝜂𝜂E and 𝜂𝜂V are computed with
BOLSIG+ [30] as a function of reduced field (E/N) using
cross sections published in [31]. As it can be seen in figure
3(a), a small fraction of H2 O can change the partition ratios,
although only in the lower E/N region (< 80 Td). The
power partition for the different energy reservoirs,
proportional to the power per electron charge density
𝜂𝜂𝜂𝜂𝑒𝑒 𝐸𝐸 2 , is plotted in figure 3(b). As it can be seen, H2 O
plays a weak role in electronic power partitioning in the
calculations since the transition considered in this paper
occurs under moderate electric fields (50 Td < E/N < 150
Td). However, such a weak effect is taken into account in
the simulation for sake of consistency.
As it is shown in figure 2, the power 𝑄𝑄E is also
partitioned into translational degrees of freedom. This
power 𝑄𝑄T represents the rate of ‘fast heating’ [32, 33]
mainly produced by collisional quenching of excited atomic
and molecular states, electron impact dissociation and
electron-ion recombination. In dry air, about 30 ± 3% of
𝑄𝑄E goes to fast heating [33]. It has been shown that in
humid air, water clusters affect the fast heating process
through electron-ion recombination (R37-R42) in high
electric field (≳ 1000 Td). Since the gas heating takes
places under moderate electric field, the effect of humidity
on fast heating can be neglected [33]. Thus, the fixed Figure 3. (a) Electronic power partitioning 𝜂𝜂 in humid air, and (b)
power per charge density as a function of the reduced field E/N.
expression 𝑄𝑄T = 0.3𝑄𝑄E is used for all the cases simulated in
Six species including the H2 O molecule are considered
this paper.
to relax the vibrational energy as listed in table 2. A
fraction of H2 O molecule can accelerate the V-T relaxation
2.3.2. Vibrational-translational energy relaxation
since 𝑘𝑘HVT2O is much higher than the relaxation rates of other
This section is devoted to define the rates of energy
relaxation transfer 𝑄𝑄VT , 𝑄𝑄VV and 𝑄𝑄D as shown in figure 2. molecular species and comparable to atomic species, as
𝑄𝑄VT accounts for the rate of energy relaxed from N2 (𝑣𝑣 = 1) shown in table 2. This has been viewed as the main reason
to interpret the effect of humidity [1, 8]. Other water
into translational energy N2 (𝑣𝑣 = 0) and it is defined as
derivatives such as H2 , OH and H are neglected when
𝜀𝜀V (𝑇𝑇V ) − 𝜀𝜀V (𝑇𝑇) calculating 𝜏𝜏VT due to their much lower density and
𝑄𝑄VT = (9)
𝜏𝜏VT relaxation rates [35].
The second term 𝑄𝑄VV accounts for the rate of energy
where 𝜏𝜏VT is the time scale of vibrational-translational (V-
loss from vibrational-vibrational (V-V) relaxation and it is
T) relaxation expressed as
defined as
1
= [1 − exp(−ℏ𝜛𝜛 ⁄𝑘𝑘B 𝑇𝑇V )] � 𝑘𝑘𝑗𝑗VT 𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗 ℒ𝑗𝑗 (10) 4𝜒𝜒𝑒𝑒 𝑘𝑘𝑁𝑁𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉2 (ℏ𝜛𝜛)2 ℏ𝜛𝜛
𝜏𝜏VT 𝑄𝑄𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 3 𝑛𝑛2𝑁𝑁2(𝑣𝑣=0) 𝑣𝑣𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
2 2
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 �−2𝜒𝜒𝑒𝑒 𝑣𝑣𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 � � − 1� (11)
𝑗𝑗 �𝛿𝛿𝑁𝑁𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉2 � 𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵 𝑇𝑇 𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵 𝑇𝑇
where 𝑘𝑘𝑗𝑗VT is the deactivation rate of the N2 (𝑣𝑣 = 1) in
where 𝜒𝜒𝑒𝑒 = 6.13 × 10−3 is the anharmonicity coefficient,
collision with jth species [34]. ℒ𝑗𝑗 is the Losev correction 𝑇𝑇
𝑘𝑘NVV2 the V-V exchange rate of N2 , 𝑣𝑣Tr = (𝜒𝜒 𝑇𝑇 + 1)/2 and
factor set to unity [13]. 1
𝑒𝑒 V

𝛿𝛿NVV2 = 6.8/𝑇𝑇 2 the inverse radius of V-V exchange. nN2(v=0)

represents the unexcited N2 molecules and is calculated as
nN2(v=0) = nN2 [1 − exp(− ℏϖ⁄k B TV )].

5
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

Table 2. Vibrational relaxation rates with N2

𝑘𝑘𝑗𝑗VT or 𝑘𝑘𝑗𝑗VV ( cm3 s −1 ) Reference

Species
N2 (𝑣𝑣 = 1) + M𝑗𝑗 → N2 (𝑣𝑣 = 0) + M𝑗𝑗
N2
1
O2 𝑘𝑘𝑗𝑗VT = 6.4 × 10−12 exp(−137/𝑇𝑇 3 ) [13]
NO
1
H2 O 𝑘𝑘𝑗𝑗VT = 2.06 × 10−11 exp(−54.3/𝑇𝑇 3 ) [35]
N 𝑘𝑘𝑗𝑗VT
= 2.3 × 10 −13
exp(−1280/𝑇𝑇)
[34]
O +2.7 × 10−11 exp(−10840/𝑇𝑇)
N2 (𝑣𝑣′) + N2 (𝑣𝑣′′) → N2 (𝑣𝑣 ′ − 1) + N2 (𝑣𝑣 ′′ + 1)
3
N2 VV
𝑘𝑘N = 2.5 × 10−14 (T/300)2 [13]
2

The last term 𝑄𝑄D accounts for the energy exchange
rates during thermal dissociation under vibrational
nonequilibrium conditions [13]. It is defined as 𝑄𝑄D = 𝜀𝜀ND2 𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷
where 𝜀𝜀ND2 = 9.76 eV is the energy loss per dissociation
event and 𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷 the net dissociation rate given by the
difference of rates R97 and R101. Note that the rate of the
vibrational energy loss in the dissociation is 2𝑄𝑄D (as shown
in figure 2) instead of 𝑄𝑄D due to anharmonicity effects (see
[13] for more details).
2.4. Method formulation
2.4.1. Assumptions
Due to the complexity of streamer discharges, three-
dimensional modelling would be required to precisely
describe the physics of the streamer-to-leader transition,
including the dark periods. Since 3D kinetic models are
impractical, a 1D radial model is usually used instead to
describe the streamer stem (and any formed leader) by
neglecting axial variations of the flow and the chemistry
[13, 15]. Thus, the electric field 𝐸𝐸𝑧𝑧 inside the considered
thin cylindrical plasma is calculated through Ohm’s law as:
𝐼𝐼
𝐸𝐸𝑧𝑧 = ∞ (12)
∫0 𝜎𝜎(𝑟𝑟)2𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 d𝑟𝑟
where 𝑟𝑟 is the radial coordinate and 𝜎𝜎(𝑟𝑟) is the electrical
conductivity expressed as 𝜎𝜎 = ∑𝑘𝑘 𝑞𝑞𝑘𝑘 𝜇𝜇𝑘𝑘 𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘 where 𝜇𝜇𝑘𝑘 is the
mobility of kth charged species. Observe that the current 𝐼𝐼
through a stem is required as input for the model, here
taken from laboratory measurements of individual
discharge events. Since the axial component 𝐸𝐸𝑧𝑧 of the
electric field in streamers and leaders in front of the
electrode is dominant, the radial component 𝐸𝐸𝑟𝑟 is
neglected. This assumption is required in 1D models [6, 13,
15] since the radial electric field component can only be
calculated when at least a 2D simulation is performed.
However, neglecting 𝐸𝐸𝑟𝑟 does not significantly influence the
6
simulation results since the terms in the model depending
on the electric field are a function of its absolute value,
which is dominated by the axial component 𝐸𝐸𝑧𝑧 . Hence, the
radial drift velocity 𝑢𝑢𝑘𝑘 𝐸𝐸𝑟𝑟 of charged species (in equation
(1)) is set to zero. Therefore, all charged species are
assumed to be transported with the bulk velocity 𝒗𝒗.
It is noteworthy that the 1D representation of the stem
and leader channels in the model generally holds to
simulate the dynamics of both charged and neutral species.
However, the 1D model has limitations to estimate the
density of charged species during the dark periods due to
the axial variation of the electric field in front of the
electrode. These variations cause changes of density for
electrons and ions along the axial direction which cannot be
calculated. Figure 4 illustrates the evolution of axial electric
field in front of the electrode during the transition [1]. As
the streamer corona propagates into the gap, its electronic
charge 𝑄𝑄− quickly drifts into the electrode and the electric
field in front of the electrode drops significantly from the
inception field 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 to a minimum field 𝐸𝐸𝑚𝑚 . During the dark
period, the recovery of the electric field with time depends
on the electrode geometry, the waveform of the applied
voltage and the charge 𝑄𝑄+ left in the gap [1]. However, the
values of 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 and 𝐸𝐸𝑚𝑚 are not possible to calculate with the
1D model. For sake of simplicity, 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 is here assumed to be
the same as the conventional breakdown threshold 𝐸𝐸𝑏𝑏 ,
given by the field where ionization (reactions R1-R3) is
equal to the two-body attachment (R23-R26). Even though
𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 can be signifincatly larger than 𝐸𝐸𝑏𝑏 for very sharp
electrodes tested under fast-rising impulse voltages, 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 and
𝐸𝐸𝑏𝑏 are in the same order under standard conditions. In turn,
𝐸𝐸𝑚𝑚 is roughly approximated as the average electric field 𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠
along a streamer filament (also known as the stabilization
field) obtained from experiments [36]. The values of 𝐸𝐸𝑏𝑏 and
𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠 are plotted in figure 5 as a function of humidity under
STP conditions. These values are in agreement with the
measured values of 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 and 𝐸𝐸𝑚𝑚 as reported in [1]. However,
it is important to point out that the assumed electric field
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
during the dark period does not have any effect in the
calculations. As the streamer corona stops propagating, all
the electronic or ionic energy rapidly decays such that no
joule heating 𝜎𝜎𝐸𝐸 2 occurs during the dark period. Since the
electric field does not affect the energy relaxation by
neutral species in the gas, their chemistry dynamics can be
simulated during the dark period.
Since the mobility of electrons can change with
humidity only at low electrical fields (<10 Td) [37], the
electron mobility is taken from dry air [38]. Furthermore,
the differences in the mobility of different ions are
neglected since electrons carry most of the current in
streamer discharges. Thus, the ion mobilities are assumed
to be equal to the averaged ion mobility [38]. It is also
noteworthy that the calculation is started when the stems of
the first streamers are formed. Since the thermal-
ionizational instability [14-16] causing the formation of
stems is not well understood, it is also assumed that the
stems are formed soon after the current of the first streamer
corona start to flow.
2.4.2. Numerical configuration and method
The initial condition for charged species in the stems of the
first streamer corona is defined as:
𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑒 = 𝑛𝑛O+2 = 𝑛𝑛0 exp(−𝑟𝑟 2 /𝑟𝑟02 )
where 𝑛𝑛0 is the peak density at the axis and 𝑟𝑟0 the initial
radius of the modelled stem. The density of all the other
ions is set to zero. The simulation starts from the first
corona inception with 𝑛𝑛0 set to satisfy 𝐸𝐸𝑧𝑧 = 𝐸𝐸𝑏𝑏 . Observe
that this approach is different from the previous models
where 𝑛𝑛0 is set to a fixed value for instance 2 × 1014 cm−3
in [6, 13, 15]. This approach defines 𝑛𝑛0 based a clear
physical condition, significantly reducing the sensitivity of
the simulation results to the assumed initial radius and the
initial current.
It is important to point out that the density of electrons
and O2+ is not calculated with equation (1) during the dark
period due to the limitations of the 1D model (as described
above). Instead, it is fixed according to equation (13) where
𝑛𝑛0 is set to 103 cm−3 to account for background ionization
by terrestrial radiation and cosmic rays [39, 40].
Furthermore, the density of the other charged species is set
to zero at the beginning of the dark period. After the dark
period, the initial condition of charged species for
secondary streamers is set in the same way as for the first
corona. Observe that the density of all neutral species is
solved throughout the calculation, including the dark
periods.
The boundary conditions are set as follows. At the axis,
the bulk velocity 𝒗𝒗 is set to zero while the Neumann
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
condition is applied to the other parameters, i.e., � =0
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑟𝑟=0
where 𝑓𝑓 = 𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗 , 𝜀𝜀 and 𝜀𝜀V . At the outer boundary, all the
parameters are fixed to their initial values.
The initial radius of the stem is assumed to be the same
as the thermal radius measured in experiments. Under the
STP condition, the thermal radius of the stem ranges from
0.1 mm to 0.3 mm according to Schlieren photographs of
laboratory discharges [1, 9]. Interestingly, laboratory
experiments reported in [9] have shown that several stems
are formed as streamers develop, until a single thermalized
leader channel is formed. This recent experimental finding
challenges the assumption widely used in the literature that
streamers have only a single stem [1]. This means that the
current flowing through each stem is, in reality, only a
fraction of the total corona current. The lower current in the
stem has a strong impact on the energy balance during the
heating of the gas. Consequently, the corona current in this
simulation is simply divided by the number of stems 𝑛𝑛ste ,
assumed to be electrically similar. Even though streamer
stems may not be identical and the stem which develops
into a leader channel might have the highest current
density, further experiments or simulations are required to
improve this assumption. The reported average number of
stems in streamers formed in a 1 m long air gap under
switching voltages is four [9]. This value obtained from 2D
photographs can be taken as a lower limit since stems can
overlap with each other or be hidden by the electrode. After
the leader channel is initiated, it is assumed that the total
(13) current mainly commutates to a single dominant
thermalized channel, as shown in figure 4 and figure 6.
The model as described above is numerically solved in
the same way as in [13] on a non-uniform radial grid with
finest mesh size of 3 𝜇𝜇m at the axis of symmetry. The mesh
size increases radially following an exponential function.
The computation region is set large enough to avoid the
reflection of the shock wave. Since the high resolution of
the shock wave is not of interest in this paper and to save
computation time, no flux-corrected transport schemes are
used. The code used in this paper has been verified with the
simulation results reported in [13].
7
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

space charge
Q+ leader channel

Q− simulated stem
r
other
stems
dark period the model

𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖

𝐸𝐸𝑚𝑚
𝐸𝐸𝐿𝐿 𝜕𝜕 Figure 5. Breakdown field (𝐸𝐸𝑏𝑏 ) and stabilization field (𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠 ) as a
Figure 4. Schematic representation of the dark period and the function of water concentration. The corresponding absolute
axial electric field in front of the anode electrode. Adapted from humidity is also given.
[1]. 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 , 𝐸𝐸𝑚𝑚 and 𝐸𝐸𝐿𝐿 denote the inception field, minimum field and
electric field in the channel, respectively.

Schlieren photographs, 5 µs/frame, 0.1 mm/pixel

25.6 mm

1.0 m
4.13 9.13 14.13 19.13 24.13 29.13 34.13 39.13 44.13 49.13 54.13 59.13, µs
4 500 15
4
First streamer
3
S1 400 12
3 2
Voltage, kV

Charge, µC

1 300 9
Current, A

2 0
7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 200 6
1 Leader inception, L1 100 3
S2 S3
0 0 0
4.13 14.13 24.13 34.13 44.13 54.13
t, µs

Figure 6. Schlieren photographs, current, charge and voltage waveforms during the streamer-to-leader transition and leader
development event leading to breakdown in a 1 m long air gap (courtesy of Prof. Junjia He, from [9]). The enlarged view of the
first streamer corona current is also shown.

8
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
3. Analysis of two discharge events in a
1m long air gap
3.1. Analysed experiments in a 1 m long air
gap
The discharge current used as input in the simulation is
taken from typical experiments reported in the literature [9].
Two different case studies are investigated and they
correspond to discharge events leading to breakdown and
withstand in a 1 m rod-plate air gap under switching
voltages with different peak value. The tested rod had a
brass cone with a tip curvature of 1.3 mm. For a detailed
description of the experimental setup, the reader is referred
to [9, 41]. The experiments were performed on Oct. 29,
2014 in the Changping district in Beijing, China.
Unfortunately, the atmospheric conditions of the
experiments were not well recorded. STP conditions in dry
air are here assumed in the simulations.
The waveforms of the applied voltage, the conductive
discharge current as well as the transferred charge of the
two events are plotted in figure 6 and figure 7. For the
breakdown case, the Schlieren photographs are also shown
in figure 6. The discharge currents are post-processed with
polyline fitting to eliminate noise oscillations. Note that
even though the applied voltages are plotted for sake of
completeness, they are not used in the calculations.
5
4 gas temperature due to strong convection losses as later
8 360
3
2
7 1
6 0
12.0 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8
5
First streamer, S1
Current, A
4 180
3
2
First leader
1 L1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40
t, µs
Figure 7. Waveform of a long air gap discharge event leading to
withstand (courtesy of Prof. Junjia He, from [9]). The enlarged
view of the first streamer corona current is also shown.
3.2. Simulation results
3.2.1. General heating dynamics at the axis
In this section, the simulation results with 𝑟𝑟0 = 0.2 mm and
𝑛𝑛ste = 4 are presented. Figure 8 (a-d) and (e-h) plots the
transient dynamics of the air density, pressure, temperature
and electric field at the axis for the case of breakdown and
withstand events, respectively. As it can be seen, the
vibrational temperature 𝑇𝑇V during each current pulse
suddenly increases due to efficient excitation of vibrational
states. Due to fast heating, the translational temperature 𝑇𝑇
also increases. As a consequence of the sudden increase in
the gas temperature, the pressure rapidly rises followed by
the drop in density.
During the dark period, the temperature 𝑇𝑇V always
decays as a result of relaxation of vibrational energy 𝑄𝑄VV . If
the translational temperature is lower than 1000 K when the
streamer corona stops, 𝑇𝑇 will slowly increase during the
dark period until thermal conduction losses start balancing
𝑄𝑄VV . Otherwise, the losses dominate over all the sources of
energy relaxation, leading instead to the decay of 𝑇𝑇. For the
two discharge events simulated in this paper, there is a
strong vibrational nonequilibrium during the streamer to
leader transition, where 𝑇𝑇V is always much larger than 𝑇𝑇,
even during the long dark period (lasting about 20 µs) in
the withstand event. This indicates that the process of V-T
relaxation is rather weak for the dark periods of laboratory
experiments with switching waveforms. On the other hand,
the density of the gas slowly recovers during the dark
period with the pressure rapidly recovering to atmospheric
conditions.
The thermalization of the stem for both analysed events
occurs when the translational temperature 𝑇𝑇 suddenly
increases above 2000 K, in agreement with [16]. This
temperature rise is triggered by the fast heating produced by
the current injection of a subsequent streamer corona. This
transition into a leader channel is followed by a drop in the
3.6
discussed in section 3.2.2. The simulations suggest that a
300 3.0
newly created leader channel will be aborted if the
temperature 𝑇𝑇 drops below 2000 K, as in the withstand
240 2.4 event. Otherwise, the central temperature of a propagating
Charge, µC
Voltage, kV
leader channel reaches a stable value. Consequently, the
1.8
translational temperature reached at the end of the streamer
120 1.2 corona triggering the inception of a propagating leader
should be significantly larger than 2000 K to compensate
L2 60 0.6 the subsequent temperature drop caused by convection
losses. Thus, the gas temperature reached by the streamer
0.0
50 60 corona triggering the transition in the breakdown event was
about 6000 K (figure 8 (c)), sufficient for a stable leader to
be incepted after the temperature drop of about 3000 K
after the gas expansion. This was not the case for the
withstand event where the maximum temperature in the gas
of about 4000 K was not sufficient to compensate the drop
of more than 2000 K caused by the convection losses,
aborting the leader.
After the transition, the channel temperature of the
propagating leader in the breakdown event was around
3000 K under a roughly constant current of about 0.4 A.
This temperature is in good agreement with previous
simulations and measurements [16]. As a consequence, the
corresponding electric field in the continuously propagating
leader (between 20 and 60 µs in figure 8) was around
1 kV cm−1 .
9
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
3.2.2. Chemical and energy dynamics at the axis
Figure 9 shows the chemical and energy dynamics at the
axis as a function of simulation time for the breakdown
event. For sake of simplicity, only the main species and
parameters are plotted.
As it can be seen in figure 9 (a), O2+ starts as the main
ionic species in the development of the first streamer
corona since N2+ , N4+ and O+ ions are quickly converted
into O2+ by R138-R144. Then NO+ gradually becomes the
dominant ionic species of subsequent streamers due to ion
conversion through R135-R137 since stepwise ionization
R4 and associative ionization R6 are rather weak at this
time. As the gas temperature increases, a large number of
N2 and O2 molecules are dissociated through R97 and R98
to produce N and O (figure 9 (b)). In addition, the density
of N2 (𝐶𝐶) metastables increases during the current pulse,
with its radiative deactivation through R56 and its
quenching through R71-R73 causing the emission of light
in the discharge [42]. Since the density of N2 (𝐶𝐶) rapidly
decays once ionization stops, O2 (𝑎𝑎) becomes the
dominating excited species during the dark period.
Figure 9 (c, d) shows the energy source terms in figure
2 as well as the conduction (−∇ ∙ (𝜅𝜅 𝑇𝑇∗ ∇𝑇𝑇)) and convection
(∇ ∙ [(𝜀𝜀 + 𝑃𝑃)𝒗𝒗]) loss terms in equation (3). The thermal
radiation loss 𝑄𝑄R is several orders of magnitude smaller
than the other source terms and thus it is not shown. In
addition, the ionic power 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 and the elastic collision power
𝑄𝑄L are not shown since they are much smaller than the fast
heating power 𝑄𝑄T . As it can be seen, most of the Joule
heating power is deposited into the excitation of vibrations
𝑄𝑄V during the streamer propagation. However, a smaller but
still significant amount of 𝑄𝑄T contributes efficiently to the
rise of the gas temperature 𝑇𝑇 during each streamer burst (as
shown in figure 8 (c, g)). The fast heating power 𝑄𝑄T also
contributes to the expansion of the gas, leading to a strong
peak of the convection losses during a short period at the
end of each streamer corona. As the streamer current
decreases and the dark period begins, the relaxation power
to thermal dissociation 𝑄𝑄D turns into the dominant
mechanism of air heating.
During the dark period, the V-V and V-T relaxation
dominates the energy flow, although the power is much
10
lower and is also decreasing with time. After a few
microseconds, the V-T relaxation power becomes even
lower than the conduction loss. Observe that the convection
loss rapidly decays at the start of the dark period, after
which heat conduction becomes the dominant energy loss
mechanism. Particularly, the thermal conduction loss
becomes predominant over the energy sources during the
dark periods when the gas temperature at the axis is larger
than 1000 K and when the temperature distribution is quite
non-uniform within the channel.
After the inception of the streamer corona triggering
the thermalization of the stem, the convection loss peak
becomes significantly larger than for the previous
streamers. This large convection loss is caused by the
strong gas expansion taking place as the current shared
between the stems commutes into a single thermalized
leader channel. Once the leader is incepted, the convection
loss is the dominating loss mechanism counteracting the
sources of heating. As a result, the gas temperature
becomes stable at around 3000 K (figure 8 (c)).
Similar dynamic characteristics as described above are
found for the withstand event (although not shown here).
However, it is found that thermal conduction losses after
the temperature drop become predominant over the 𝑄𝑄VT
relaxation instead when an aborted leader is incepted. In
such a case, the gas temperature continues decreasing,
further inhibiting the generation of electrons. This leads to
the formation of an additional dark period until a new
streamer corona is initiated by the recovery of the electric
field in front of the electrode.
On the other hand, it is found that the electron density
is balanced by ionization and two-body attachment
processes during the early development of the first streamer
corona (figure 9 (e)). As the electric field in the stem is
reduced as the streamer corona further propagates, the
electron density is given by attachment and detachment
instead. As the temperature in the gas increases, the
contribution of associative ionization and electron-ion
recombination increases during the propagation of
subsequent streamers. Once a leader is incepted, associative
ionization and electron-ion recombination become
dominant as it has been discussed in [13].
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

Figure 8. The gas dynamics at the axis, of (a, e) relative air density, (b, f) relative pressure, (c, g) translational temperature T,
vibrational temperature Tv, and (d, h) electric field E. The plots (a-d) and (e-h) correspond to the breakdown and withstand
events, respectively. The corona and leader inception time instants (for example, S1, L1) are also marked with vertical dash-
dot lines.

11
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

Figure 9. The chemical and energy dynamics at the axis, of (a) main charged and (b) main neutral species, (c, d) rates of
energy exchange, and (e) main electron source terms for the case of breakdown (dry air).

As the pressure recovers, the density progressively

3.2.3. Radial gas dynamics
Figure 10 shows the radial dynamics of the plasma channel
for the breakdown event at different time instants. As it has
been discussed above, the fast heating of a streamer corona
burst leads to a fast pressure increase after the streamer
current peak (at 7.56 µs in figure 10). Then, the pressure at
the axis rapidly decreases to close to atmospheric
conditions when the streamer corona stops (at 8 µs),
producing a shock wave. This shock wave propagates with
a velocity larger than the speed of the sound at STP
condition (about 340 m s −1 ).
decreases such that the heated region slowly expands in the
radial direction. Even though the gas velocity can reach
maximum local values in the order of several tens of meter
per second (figure 10 (d)), the radial expansion velocity of
the heated region during the dark period is even slower
(less than few meters per second). Soon after the streamer-
to-leader transition occurs, the heated region border
expands faster (with a velocity of about 10 m/s at 20 µs in
figure 10) as the density decreases significantly in the radial
direction.

12
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
Figure 10. The radial gas dynamics of (a) relative air density, (b) relative pressure, (c) translational temperature T, and
(d) bulk velocity 𝒗𝒗 for the breakdown event.
3.3. Comparison between measured and
simulated thermal radius
Figure 11 compares the simulated thermal radius with the
experimental data for the breakdown event described in
section 3.1. Observe that the thermal radius in the
experiment is estimated directly from the Schlieren
photographs shown in figure 6. Considering the resolution
of the photograph, there is an uncertainty of 0.1 mm in the
estimated experimental radius. In the simulation, it is
estimated at the location with the maximum gradient of the
calculated gas density profile. As it can be seen, there is an
excellent agreement between the measured and calculated
thermal radius for the assumed 𝑟𝑟0 = 0.2 mm in dry air.
A sensitivity analysis has been performed to evaluate
the variations on the estimated thermal radius caused by the
parameters assumed in the model. Thus, the simulations are
repeated under different values of the initial radius 𝑟𝑟0 , the
number of stems 𝑛𝑛ste , and the water concentration. For sake
of clarity, only two additional simulated cases with
𝑛𝑛ste = 4 are shown in figure 11 (a). It is shown that the
simulated stem radius deviates within the error bars of the
measured radius when a larger initial radius (𝑟𝑟0 = 0.3 mm)
is used. This variation is because the initial radius directly
changes the current density in the stem. As a result, the gas
temperature after the first streamer corona is significantly
smaller when either increasing the initial radius or
increasing the number of stems, as shown in figure 11 (b).
Such deviations become negligible once the leader is
initiated. Figure 11 also indicates that the calculated
thermal radius and gas temperature is weakly affected by
the humidity content in air if the same initial condition is
used. Further discussion about the effect of humidity in the
thermalization of air is presented in the following section.
13
The sensitivity analysis also shows that the number of
stems 𝑛𝑛ste in the analysed breakdown event cannot be
smaller than 4, in agreement with [9]. Otherwise, the gas
temperature will exceed 2000 K after first streamer corona
leading immediately to the formation of a leader channel,
which is not observed in the experiment. This indicates that
multiple stems in streamers have to be considered in order
to calculate the thermalization of the gas correctly.
4. Discussion
4.1. The effect of humidity on streamer-to-
leader transition
It is known from laboratory experiments that humidity
influences the streamer-to-leader transition by decreasing
the duration of the dark period [8]. Since the transition into
a leader after the dark period depends on the heating of the
stem and the recovery of the electric field in front of the
electrode, the effect of humidity on these two processes is
discussed in this section.
4.1.1. Humidity effect on the heating of air
The theory proposed by Gallimberti [1] suggests that
humidity plays a significant role in the thermalization of air
through the V-T relaxation. However, our simulations
show, as in [14], that the V-T relaxation has a weak effect
on the gas heating during the streamer-to-leader transition.
The comparison of the rates of energy exchange simulated
in dry air and humid air for the breakdown event is plotted
in figure 12. As it can be seen, no significant differences are
found under dry and humid air conditions. As a
consequence, the maximum difference of the simulated
temperature is less than 50 K (figure 11 (b)).
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
Figure 11. (a) Comparison between the thermal radius measured
in the breakdown event (figure 6) and corresponding simulated
results; (b) Simulated gas temperature at the axis of the channel
under different input parameters.
Thus, humidity does not have an important effect on
the thermalization of air through the V-T relaxation due to
two reasons. First, although humidity slightly increases 𝑄𝑄VT
during the first streamer corona, this effect becomes weaker
in the dark period (figure 12). Second, the V-T relaxation
power (𝑄𝑄VT ) has a minor effect in the energy balance before
a leader is formed [14]. Observe that 𝑄𝑄VT is, during most of
the streamer-to-leader transition, several orders of
magnitude smaller than other energy sources (figure 9).
Even though 𝑄𝑄VT is the dominant energy source reservoir
during a brief interval at the end of the dark periods, it is
still smaller than the thermal conduction loss (see figure 9
(c)).
14
Figure 12. Comparison of the simulated rates of energy exchange
and temperature between dry air and humid air (water
concentration: 3%), which correspond to solid lines and dash
lines, respectively.
As the result of the weak effect of humidity on the V-T
relaxation, the simulations suggest that gas temperature is
not significantly affected by water content as shown in
figure 11 (b). However, it is important to point out that this
conclusion is based on the basic assumption that humidity
does not influence the number and initial radius of the
stems as well as the current injected by streamers. These
three factors determine the current density at the cross
section of a stem. Even though it is known that humidity
reduces the total charge injected by streamers [1, 8], there is
unfortunately no experimental or theoretical knowledge
about the effect of humidity on the current density of stems.
Thus, further studies on the formation of stems in streamers
are required to fully assess the effect of water content on
gas heating.
4.1.2. Humidity effect on the field recovery
The recovery of the electric field in front of the electrode
during the dark period depends on the rate of rise of the
applied voltage and the electrostatic shielding produced by
the streamer corona space charge [1, 8]. This shielding
effect is produced by the positive space charge injected into
the gap by the streamer corona, which reduces the electric
field in front of the electrode.
Laboratory experiments have shown that humidity
significantly reduces the amount of charge injected by
streamers [1]. This effect of humidity can be readily
explained when using the 1D model to simulate the
dynamics in single streamer filament instead. In such a
case, the calculations are performed for a single filament
channel under a significantly smaller current than in the
stem. As an example, the simulation is performed for a
single filament of the first streamer corona under a peak
current of ~0.18 A (i.e. with 𝑛𝑛ste = 20). Figure 13 (a)
compares the electron source terms (𝑆𝑆att2 , 𝑆𝑆det , 𝑆𝑆rec ) at the
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
axis between dry and humid conditions. Observe that the
electron-ion recombination contribution 𝑆𝑆rec in humid air is
one order of magnitude larger than in dry air. Thus, the
electron density as the streamer propagates is significantly
lower in saturated humid air. This effect is caused by the
high density of water clusters H3 O+ (H2 O)𝑛𝑛 produced,
which is comparable with the electron density as shown in
figure 13 (b). These water clusters then reduce the electron
density through extensive electron-ion recombination
reactions (R40-R42), as it has been suggested in [43].
Consequently, the net positive space charge left after a
streamer propagates in humid air is lower than for the case
in dry air. Thus, the effect of water content on the dark
period can be mainly explained by the reduction of the
electrostatic shielding produced by the streamer space
charge under humid conditions.
Figure 13. Simulation results of a single streamer filament in the
corona zone with 𝑟𝑟0 = 0.2 mm and a peak current of 0.18 A. (a)
Main electron source terms and (b) the electron density in humid
air (dash lines, water concentration: 3%) and dry air (solid lines)
condition for the breakdown event. The dynamics of ionic
derivatives of water molecule in humid air at the axis is also
plotted with dash lines.
15
4.2. Comparison with the model of Gallimberti
At the end of 1970s, Gallimberti published a prestigious
paper where the state-of-the-art research of the physics of
long sparks at that time was summarized [1]. In the paper,
he proposed a leader inception model taking into account
humidity. Due to its straightforward application, the model
has been widely used in later numerical studies (e.g [20-
22]).
However, the model proposed by Gallimberti was
derived considering several simplifying assumptions:
I. the electric field of the stem was assumed constant
as the streamer corona propagates and it was
usually taken equal to the field in the streamer
channel 𝐸𝐸sc = 5 kV cm−1 [1]. Consequently, a
constant fraction of power leading to fast heating
and to vibrations of 0.1 and 0.8 respectively was
usually assumed [8].
II. the entire power injected by a streamer corona
burst flows through a single individual stem.
III. the radial variations of the chemistry and the gas
flow were neglected such that the derived model
was zero-dimensional. As a consequence, the
losses of energy due to radiation, convection or
conduction were also neglected.
IV. the complex dynamics of the energy transfer in the
stem were simplified by assuming that V-T
relaxation dominates the heating of air through an
equivalent time constant 𝜏𝜏VT . This constant was
defined as a function of gas temperature and
humidity only.
It is interesting to compare here the presented model
with the model proposed by Gallimberti. As an example, a
simulation case which has been reported in [1] is discussed
here. Figure 14 (a) plots the measured discharge current
used in the simulation with both models. Figure 14 (b)
shows the comparison of the simulated temperature
(translational and vibrational) with our model and that from
Gallimberti’s model. The simulations are performed under
two humidity conditions with absolute humidity of 4 and
12 g m−3 . In our simulation, the initial conditions are STP
and the initial radius of the stem is 0.2 mm, which is larger
than that used in Gallimberti’s model in [1]. Observe that
the smaller initial radius of the stem assumed by
Gallimberti is usually conveniently adjusted to get good
agreement with experimental results [14]. In addition, four
initial stems initiated from the rod (𝑛𝑛ste = 4) are assumed
in our simulations.
As it can be seen in figure 14 (b), the rise in the gas
temperature 𝑇𝑇 during the first streamer corona in our model
is higher than that proposed by Gallimberti while an
opposite relation is found for the vibrational temperature
𝑇𝑇V . This difference is the overall result of the misestimation
of the input energy in the model of Gallimberti by
compensating errors in the assumptions I and II. Observe
that the electric field near the anode electrode in the stem is
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
higher than along streamer filaments [44], and it changes in
time (figure 4). Therefore, the fraction of energy transferred
into fast heating (calculated as 𝑄𝑄T /𝑄𝑄) during the streamer
propagation changes within a broad range between 0.01 and
0.27. Similar broad variation in the fraction of energy of
vibration (𝑄𝑄V /𝑄𝑄) between 0.05 and 0.95 occurs in the
analysed case. Moreover, it is likely that 4 or more stems
were formed by the streamers generating the current shown
in figure 14 (a) since the simulated gas temperature after
first streamer corona would otherwise exceed 2000 K.
Another interesting difference found in figure 14 (b) is
that the model of Gallimberti predicts a gas temperature
monotonically increasing with time. Observe that the 1D
model predicts instead that the gas temperature decreases
with time during the dark period due to energy losses
(mainly due to thermal conduction) in the stem. Since these
losses are larger than the power relaxed from VT states,
their contribution in the energy balance in the stem cannot
be neglected. This result shows that the assumption III
strongly affects the prediction of the actual stem
temperature in the model of Gallimberti, especially for
discharges with long dark periods. It also casts doubts about
the suggestion that the gas temperature during the dark
period can increase on its own to the critical temperature of
1 500~2 000 K, triggering the streamer corona to leader
transition [1].
Figure 14. (a) The discharge current used and (b) the comparison
of the temperature at the axis simulated with the model in this
paper and with Gallimberti’s model [1] under absolute humidity of
4 g m−3 (dashed lines) and 12 g m−3 (solid lines).
16
It is also shown in figure 14 (b) that the model
developed by Gallimberti predicts significant differences
between two different humidity conditions. These
differences are caused by the assumption IV which neglects
the actual energy transfer of mechanisms other than the V-T
relaxation into the stem. Furthermore, it neglects that 𝜏𝜏VT is
not only a function of temperature and humidity content but
it also depends on the concentration of the different
chemical species, as described in equation (10). Therefore,
water content weakly influences the heating of the gas in
the stem, as discussed already in section 4.1.
5. Conclusions
This paper numerically investigates the dynamics of the
streamer-to-leader transition prior to the inception of a
stable leader in long air gap discharges with a thermal
hydrodynamic model and a detailed kinetic scheme of
N2/O2/H2O mixtures. The model is validated by comparison
with a typical breakdown event measured in a 1m rod-plane
gap. The simulated thermal radius is in good agreement
with that obtained from experiments. The dynamics at the
axis and the radial gas dynamics are summarized in details
for a breakdown event reported in the literature. The effect
of humidity on streamer-to-leader transition and the
comparison with the model of Gallimberti are discussed.
The main conclusions are summarized as:
• It is confirmed that the critical gas temperature of
the streamer-to-leader transition is around 2000 K,
consistent with previous studies. However, it is also
found that the gas at the axis should reach
significantly larger temperature than this critical
value for the transition to lead to a stable,
propagating leader discharge. Due to a strong
convection loss soon after the streamer-to-leader
transition occurs, the gas temperature suddenly
drops. If the temperature after this drop falls below
2000 K, the leader created in the transition is aborted
since thermalization cannot be then maintained.
Instead, a propagating leader is initiated if the gas
temperature increase produced by the streamer
corona triggering the transition is sufficiently high to
compensate the convection-induced temperature
drop.
• Vibrational-Vibrational (V-V) and Vibrational-
Translational (V-T) relaxation dominates the energy
flow during the dark period, although their power is
much lower than for other energy sources during the
streamer propagation. However, the V-T relaxation
power becomes even lower than the conduction loss
after a few microseconds into the dark period. The
convection loss rapidly decays at the start of the dark
period, after which heat conduction becomes the
dominant energy loss mechanism. Particularly, the
thermal conduction loss becomes predominant over
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71
the energy sources during the dark periods when the
gas temperature at the axis is larger than 1000 K and
when the temperature distribution is quite non-
uniform within the channel.
• Under the analysed laboratory conditions, ionization
and two-body attachment processes balance the
production of electrons during the early
development of the first streamer corona. As the
electric field in the stem is reduced when the
streamer corona further propagates, the electron
density is balanced by attachment and detachment
instead. As the temperature in the gas increases, the
contribution of associative ionization and electron-
ion recombination increases during the propagation
of subsequent streamers. Once a leader is incepted,
the generation of electrons is mainly given by
associative ionization and electron-ion
recombination.
• Although humidity slightly increases the V-T
relaxation during the first streamer corona, this
effect becomes weaker in the subsequent streamers.
This result is obtained under the assumption that
humidity does not affect the streamer stems. Thus,
further investigation of the humidity effect on the
17
properties of streamer stems are required to fully
assess the effect of water content on gas heating
during the streamer-to-leader transition.
• The vibrational-translational (V-T) relaxation during
the dark period during leader inception period is
significantly overestimated by the widely-used
model of Gallimberti. It is shown that the
assumptions used in Gallimberti’s model are
unjustified and limited to investigate the streamer-
to-leader transition.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Professor Junjia He from
Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST)
for authorizing us to use and publish the experimental data
as presented in the paper. Many thanks are given to Dr.
Hengxin He and Dr. Yishi Yue who have devoted a lot of
efforts in the experiments and to Dr. Xiangen Zhao for
helpful discussions regarding the experiments. LL also
greatly appreciates the scholarship support from China
Scholarship Council (Grant No. 201306160003). MB
would like to also acknowledge the financial support of the
Swedish strategic research program StandUp for Energy.
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

Appendix: Chemical reaction list of N2/O2/H2O mixtures

Table A1. List of chemical reactions
Reaction Rate, 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 (s −1 , cm3 s−1 , cm6 s−1 ) Reference
Generation of electrons by direct ionization (𝑆𝑆ion )
R1 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 → O+ 2 + 𝑒𝑒 + 𝑒𝑒
R2 N2 + 𝑒𝑒 → N2+ + 𝑒𝑒 + 𝑒𝑒 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁), see Table A2 BOLSIG+
R3 H2 O + 𝑒𝑒 → H2 O+ + 𝑒𝑒 + 𝑒𝑒
Generation of electrons by stepwise ionization (𝑆𝑆step )
R4 NO + 𝑒𝑒 → NO+ + 𝑒𝑒 + 𝑒𝑒 5 × 10−9 exp(−460/(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁))𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁)
[13]
R5 O + 𝑒𝑒 → O+ + 𝑒𝑒 + 𝑒𝑒 4 × 10−9 exp(−713/(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁))𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁)
Generation of electrons by associative ionization (𝑆𝑆assoc )
R6 N + O → NO+ + 𝑒𝑒 1.5 × 10−15 𝑇𝑇exp(−32000/𝑇𝑇) [45]
+
R7 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + N2 (𝑎𝑎′) → N4 + 𝑒𝑒 5 × 10−11
+ [13]
R8 N2 (𝑎𝑎′) + N2 (𝑎𝑎′) → N4 + 𝑒𝑒 2 × 10−10
Generation of electrons by detachment (𝑆𝑆det)
(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁)2
R9 O− + N2 → N2 O + 𝑒𝑒 1.16 × 10−12 (43.5)2+(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁)2
R10 O− + O → O2 + 𝑒𝑒 5 × 10−10
−
O + N2 (𝐴𝐴) → O + N2 + 𝑒𝑒 2.2 × 10−9
R11
O− + O2 (𝑎𝑎) → O3 + 𝑒𝑒 3 × 10−10 [13]
R12
O− + NO → NO2 + 𝑒𝑒 2.6 × 10−10
R13
R14 O−2 + O → O3 + 𝑒𝑒 1.5 × 10−10
R15 O−2 + H → HO2 + 𝑒𝑒 1.2 × 10−9 [24]
R16 O−
2 + N2 (𝐴𝐴) → O2 + N2 + 𝑒𝑒 2.1 × 10−9
R17 O−
2 + O2 (𝑎𝑎) → O2 + O2 + 𝑒𝑒 2 × 10−10
eff [13]
6034 1 − exp�−6034(1/𝑇𝑇 − 1/𝑇𝑇R18 )�
R18 O−
2 + O2 → O2 + O2 + 𝑒𝑒 2 × 10−10 exp �− eff
� eff
𝑇𝑇R18 1 − exp�−1509(1/𝑇𝑇 − 1/𝑇𝑇R18 )�
R19 H − + H → H2 + 𝑒𝑒 2 × 10−9
R20 H − + O2 → HO2 + 𝑒𝑒 1.2 × 10−9
[24]
R21 OH − + H → H2 O + 𝑒𝑒 1.4 × 10−9
−
R22 OH + O → HO2 + 𝑒𝑒 2 × 10−9
Loss of electrons by two-body dissociative attachment (𝑆𝑆att2 )
R23 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 → O− + O
R24 H2 O + 𝑒𝑒 → OH − + H
𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁), see Table A2 BOLSIG+
R25 H2 O + 𝑒𝑒 → H − + OH
−
R26 H2 O + 𝑒𝑒 → O + H2
Loss of electrons by three-body attachment (𝑆𝑆att3 )
exp�700(1/𝑇𝑇 − 1/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )�
R27 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 + O2 → O−
2 + O2 𝑘𝑘27 = 1.4 × 10−29
(𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 /300)exp(600/𝑇𝑇)
exp�1500(1/𝑇𝑇 − 1/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )� [13]
R28 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 + N2 → O−
2 + N2 1.07 × 10−31
(𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 /300)2 exp(70/𝑇𝑇)
R29 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 + O → O− 2 +O 10−31
−
R30 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 + H2 O → O2 + H2 O 𝑘𝑘30 = 6𝑘𝑘27 [25, 26]
Loss of electrons by electron-ion recombination (𝑆𝑆rec )
R31 NO+ + 𝑒𝑒 → O + N(2 D) 4 × 10−7 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )1.5
R32 O+2 + 𝑒𝑒 → O + O( 1 D) 2 × 10−7 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )
R33 N2+ + 𝑒𝑒 → N + N(2 D) 2 × 10−7 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.5
R34 O+ 4 + 𝑒𝑒 → O2 + O2 4.2 × 10−6 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.5
+ [25]
R35 O2 N2 + 𝑒𝑒 → O2 + N2 1.3 × 10−6 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.5
R36 +
N4 + 𝑒𝑒 → N2 + N2 (𝐶𝐶) 2 × 10−6 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.5
+(
R37 O2 H2 O) + 𝑒𝑒 → O2 + H2 O 2 × 10−6 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.5
+
R38 H2 O + 𝑒𝑒 → OH + H 3.15 × 10−7 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.8
18
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

Reaction Rate, 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 (s −1 , cm3 s−1 , cm6 s−1 ) Reference

R39 H3 O+ + 𝑒𝑒 → H2 O + H 3.15 × 10−7 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.5
R40 H3 O+ (H2 O) + 𝑒𝑒 → H2 O + H2 O + H 2.5 × 10−6 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.5
R41 H3 O+ (H2 O)2 + 𝑒𝑒 → H2 O + H2 O + H2 O + H 4.5 × 10−6 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.5
R42 H3 O+ (H
2 O)3 + 𝑒𝑒 → H2 O + H2 O + H2 O + H2 O + H 6.5 × 10−6 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 )0.5
Electron impact excitation of metastable states
R43 N2 + 𝑒𝑒 → N2 (𝐴𝐴) + 𝑒𝑒
R44 N2 + 𝑒𝑒 → N2 (𝐵𝐵) + 𝑒𝑒
𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁), see Table A2
R45 N2 + 𝑒𝑒 → N2 (𝑎𝑎′) + 𝑒𝑒
R46 N2 + 𝑒𝑒 → N2 (𝐶𝐶) + 𝑒𝑒 BOLSIG+
−10.3 − 5.4/(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁), 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁 < 50
R47 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 → O2 (𝑎𝑎) + 𝑒𝑒 𝑘𝑘47 𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁),log 𝑘𝑘47 = �
−8.7 − 80/(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁), 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁 ≥ 50
−11.2 − 13/(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁), 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁 < 40
R48 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 → O2 (𝑏𝑏) + 𝑒𝑒 𝑘𝑘48 𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁),log 𝑘𝑘48 = �
−9.4 − 80/(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁), 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁 ≥ 40
Electron impact dissociation
R49 N2 + 𝑒𝑒 → N + N(2 D) + 𝑒𝑒
R50 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 → O + O + 𝑒𝑒
R51 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 → O + O(1 D) + 𝑒𝑒
𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁), see Table A2 BOLSIG+
R52 O2 + 𝑒𝑒 → O + O(1 S) + 𝑒𝑒
R53 H2 O + 𝑒𝑒 → H + OH + 𝑒𝑒
R54 H2 O + 𝑒𝑒 → H2 + O + 𝑒𝑒
Radiative deactivation of metastables, optical emission
R55 N2 (𝐵𝐵) → N2 (𝐴𝐴) + ℎ𝑣𝑣 (1PN2 ) 1.7 × 105
[13]
R56 N2 (𝐶𝐶) → N2 (𝐵𝐵) + ℎ𝑣𝑣 (2PN2 ) 2 × 107
Quenching of metastables
R57 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + O2 → N2 + O + O 2.54 × 10−12
R58 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + O2 → N2 + O2 (𝑏𝑏) 7.5 × 10−13
R59 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + O → N2 + O(1 S) 3 × 10−11
[13]
R60 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + O → NO + N(2 D) 7 × 10−12
R61 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + N2 (𝐴𝐴) → N2 (𝐵𝐵) + N2 7.7 × 10−11
R62 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + N2 (𝐴𝐴) → N2 (𝐶𝐶) + N2 1.6 × 10−10
R63 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + H → N2 + H 2.1 × 10−10
R64 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + OH → N2 + OH 10−10 [24]
R65 N2 (𝐴𝐴) + H2 O → N2 + H + OH 5 × 10−14
R66 N2 (𝐵𝐵) + O2 → N2 + O + O 3 × 10−10
R67 N2 (𝐵𝐵) + N2 → N2 (𝐴𝐴) + N2 10−11
[13]
R68 N2 (𝑎𝑎′) + O2 → N2 + O + O( D)1
2.8 × 10−11
R69 N2 (𝑎𝑎′) + N2 → N2 (𝐵𝐵) + N2 2 × 10−13
R70 N2 (𝑎𝑎′) + H2 O → N2 + H + OH 3 × 10−10 [24]
1
R71 N2 (𝐶𝐶) + O2 → N2 + O + O( D) 2.5 × 10−10
R72 N2 (𝐶𝐶) + N2 → N2 (𝐵𝐵) + N2 10−11
R73 N2 (𝐶𝐶) + N2 → N2 (𝑎𝑎′) + N2 10−11
[13]
R74 O(1 D) + N2 → O + N2 1.8 × 10−11 exp(107/𝑇𝑇)
R75 O(1 D) + O2 → O + O2 (𝑏𝑏) 2.56 × 10−11 exp(67/𝑇𝑇)
R76 1
O( D) + O2 → O + O2 0.64 × 10−11 exp(67/𝑇𝑇)
R77 1
O( D) + N2 O → NO + NO 7.2 × 10−11
[46]
R78 1
O( D) + N2 O → N2 + O2 4.4 × 10−11
R79 O(1 D) + H2 → H + OH 1.1 × 10−10
R80 O(1 D) + H2 O → OH + OH 2.2 × 10−10
1 [24]
R81 O( D) + H2 O → H2 + O2 3.57 × 10−10
R82 1
O( D) + H2 O2 → H2 O + O2 5.2 × 10−10
1 1 1
R83 O( S) + O → O( D) + O( D) 5 × 10−11 exp(−301/𝑇𝑇)
[13]
R84 O(1 S) + O2 → O(1 D) + O2 1.3 × 10−12 exp(−850/𝑇𝑇)
R85 O(1 S) + H2 O → O + H2 O 3 × 10−10
R86 1
O( S) + H2 O → OH + OH 5 × 10−10 [24]
1
R87 O( S) + H2 O → H2 + O2 5 × 10−10
R88 2
N( D) + O2 → NO + O 1.5 × 10−12 (𝑇𝑇/300)0.5
[13]
R89 N(2 D) + O2 → NO + O(1 D) 6 × 10−12 (𝑇𝑇/300)0.5
19
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

Reaction Rate, 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 (s −1 , cm3 s−1 , cm6 s−1 ) Reference

R90 N(2 D) + N2 → N + N2 6 × 10−15
R91 O2 (𝑎𝑎) + O2 → O2 + O2 2.2 × 10−18 (𝑇𝑇/300)0.8
R92 O2 (𝑎𝑎) + O → O2 + O 7 × 10−16 (𝑇𝑇/300)0.5 [39]
R93 O2 (𝑏𝑏) + O2 → O2 (𝑎𝑎) + O2 4.1 × 10−17
R94 O2 (𝑏𝑏) + N2 → O2 (𝑎𝑎) + N2 2.1 × 10−15 [24]
R95 O2 (𝑏𝑏) + H2 O → O2 + H2 O 4.6 × 10−12
R96 O2 (𝑏𝑏) + O → O2 (𝑎𝑎) + O 8 × 10−14 (𝑇𝑇/300)0.5 [39]
Thermal dissociation and recombination
𝑍𝑍(𝑇𝑇, 𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 )�1.1 × 10−7(𝑋𝑋O + 𝑋𝑋N ) + 5 × 10−8�𝑋𝑋NO + 𝑋𝑋N2 + 𝑋𝑋O2 ��
R97 N2 + M → N + N + M
× exp(−113260/𝑇𝑇) [1 − exp(−3354/𝑇𝑇)]
�1.3 × 10−7𝑋𝑋O + 3.7 × 10−8𝑋𝑋O2 + 9.3 × 10−9 �𝑋𝑋NO + 𝑋𝑋N2 + 𝑋𝑋N ��
R98 O2 + M → O + O + M
× exp(−59380/𝑇𝑇) [1 − exp(−2240/𝑇𝑇)]
[13]
�1.7 × 10−7(𝑋𝑋O + 𝑋𝑋N + 𝑋𝑋NO ) + 8.7 × 10−9 �𝑋𝑋N2 + 𝑋𝑋O2 ��
R99 NO + M → N + O + M
× exp(−76000/𝑇𝑇)
R100 O3 + O3 → O2 + O + O3 7.16 × 10−10 exp(−11200/𝑇𝑇) [24]
R101 N + N + M → N2 + M 8.27 × 10−34 exp(500/𝑇𝑇)
2.76 × 10−34�𝑋𝑋NO + 𝑋𝑋N2 + 𝑋𝑋N � exp(700/𝑇𝑇)
R102 O + O + M → O2 + M
+�8.8 × 10−31𝑋𝑋O + 2.45 × 10−31𝑋𝑋O2 �𝑇𝑇 −0.63
[13]
R103 N + O + M → NO + M 1.76 × 10 𝑇𝑇 −31 −0.5

R104 O2 + O + M → O3 + M 6 × 10−34(𝑇𝑇/300)−2.6�𝑋𝑋N2 + 𝑋𝑋O2 �

6.9 × 10−31(𝑇𝑇/300)−0.8𝑋𝑋N2 + 6.05 × 10−31(𝑇𝑇/300)−3𝑋𝑋O2
R105 OH + OH + M → H2 O2 + M +1.54 × 10−31(𝑇𝑇/300)−2 exp(183.6/𝑇𝑇) 𝑋𝑋H2 O
R106 5.94 × 10−32(𝑇𝑇/300)−1�𝑋𝑋N2 + 𝑋𝑋O2 �
[24]
O2 + H + M → HO2 + M
R107 OH + OH → H2 O2 2.6 × 10−11
R108 OH + H + M → H2 O + M 6.87 × 10−31(𝑇𝑇/300)−2𝑋𝑋N2 + 4.38 × 10−31(𝑇𝑇/300)−2𝑋𝑋H2 O
Exchange of chemical bonds
R109 O + N2 → N + NO 1.3 × 10−10 exp(−38000/𝑇𝑇)
R110 N + O2 → O + NO 10−14 𝑇𝑇 exp(−3150/𝑇𝑇)
[13]
R111 N + NO → O + N2 10−12 𝑇𝑇 0.5
R112 O + NO → N + O2 2.5 × 10−15 𝑇𝑇 exp(−19500/𝑇𝑇)
R113 O + HO2 → OH + O2 2.7 × 10−11 exp(224/𝑇𝑇)
R114 O + NO2 → NO + O2 5.5 × 10−12 exp(−187.9/𝑇𝑇)
R115 O3 + H → OH + O2 1.4 × 10−10 exp(−480/𝑇𝑇)
R116 O3 + NO → O2 + NO2 3.16 × 10−12 exp(1563/𝑇𝑇)
R117 O3 + OH → O2 + HO2 1.7 × 10−12 exp(−940/𝑇𝑇)
R118 OH + OH → H2 O + O 6.2 × 10−14 (𝑇𝑇/300)2.6 exp(945/𝑇𝑇)
R119 OH + HO2 → H2 O + O2 4.8 × 10−11 exp(250/𝑇𝑇)
[24]
R120 OH + O → H + O2 2.4 × 10−11 exp(110/𝑇𝑇)
R121 HO2 + HO2 → H2 O2 + O2 2.2 × 10−19 exp(600.2/𝑇𝑇)
R122 HO2 + NO → OH + NO2 3.6 × 10−12 exp(269.4/𝑇𝑇)
R123 HO2 + HO2 + M → H2 O2 + O2 + M 1.9 × 10−33 exp(980/𝑇𝑇) �𝑋𝑋N2 + 𝑋𝑋O2 �
R124 H + HO2 → H2 + O2 1.75 × 10−10 exp(−1030/𝑇𝑇)
R125 H + HO2 → H2 O + O 5 × 10−11 exp(−866/𝑇𝑇)
R126 H + HO2 → OH + OH 7.4 × 10−10 exp(−700/𝑇𝑇)
Positive ions conversion
R127 O+4 + O2 (𝑎𝑎) → O+2 + O2 + O2 10−10
R128 O+4 + O → O+2 + O3 3 × 10−10
R129 O2 + O2 + O2 → O+4 + O2
+ eff
2.4 × 10−30 (𝑇𝑇R129 /300)−3.2 [13]
R130 O+2 N2 + O2 → O+4 + N2 10−9
R131 O+2 + N2 + N2 → O+2 N2 + N2 eff
0.9 × 10−30 (𝑇𝑇R131 /300)−2
R132 O+4 + N2 → O+2 N2 + O2 −12 eff 2.5
4.61 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R132 /300) exp(−2650/𝑇𝑇R132 eff
) [46]
R133 O2 N2 + N2 → O+2 + N2 + N2
+ −6 eff
1.1 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R133 /300) −5.3 eff
exp(−2357/𝑇𝑇R133 )
[13]
R134 O+4 + O2 → O+2 + O2 + O2 eff
3.3 × 10−6 (𝑇𝑇R134 /300)−4 exp(−5030/𝑇𝑇R134 eff
)
R135 O+2 + N2 → NO+ + NO eff
10−20 (𝑇𝑇R135 /300)−2 [39]
R136 O+2 + N → NO+ + O 1.2 × 10−10
[13]
R137 O+2 + NO → NO+ + O2 4.4 × 10−10
R138 N2+ + O2 → O+2 + N2 eff
6 × 10−11 (𝑇𝑇R138 /300)−0.5
R139 N2 + N2 + N2 → N4+ + N2
+ eff
5 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R139 /300)0.5
−29

R140 N4+ + N2 → N2+ + N2 + N2 2.1 × 10−16 (𝑇𝑇R140eff

/300)0.5 [39]
R141 N4+ + O2 → O+2 + N2 + N2 2.5 × 10−10 (𝑇𝑇R141eff
/300)0.5
R142 O+ + O2 → O+2 + O eff
2 × 10−11 (𝑇𝑇R142 /300)−0.4
20
For the published version, please visit https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa7c71

Reaction Rate, 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 (s −1 , cm3 s−1 , cm6 s−1 ) Reference

R143 O+ + N2 → NO+ + N eff
1.2 × 10−12 (𝑇𝑇R143 /300)−1
R144 O+ + N2 + M → NO+ + N + M eff
6 × 10−29 (𝑇𝑇R144 /300)−2 �𝑋𝑋N2 + 𝑋𝑋O2 �
Negative ions conversion
R145 O− + O2 (𝑎𝑎) → O−2 + O 10−10
[13]
R146 O−2 + O → O2 + O− 3.3 × 10−10
R147 O−2 + H → O + OH− 1.5 × 10−9 [24]
R148 O−3 + O → O2 + O−2 3.2 × 10−10
[13]
R149 O− + O2 + M → O−3 + M eff
1.08 × 10−30 (𝑇𝑇R149 /300)−1
R150 H− + H2 O → OH− + H2 3.8 × 10−9 [24]
Two-body ion-ion recombination
R151 O− + O+2 → O + O2
R152 O−2 + O+2 → O2 + O2
R153 O−3 + O+2 → O3 + O2
2 × 10−7 (300/𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 )0.5
R154 O− + NO+ → O + NO
R155 O−2 + NO+ → O2 + NO
R156 O−3 + NO+ → O3 + NO
R157 O− + O+2 → O + O + O
R158 O− + NO+ → O + O + N
R159 O− + O+4 → O + O2 + O2
[13]
R160 O− + O+2 N2 → O + O2 + N2
R161 O−2 + O+2 → O2 + O + O
R162 O−2 + NO+ → O2 + O + N
10−7
R163 O−2 + O+4 → O2 + O2 + O2
R164 O−2 + O+2 N2 → O2 + O2 + N2
R165 O−3 + O+2 → O3 + O + O
R166 O−3 + NO+ → O3 + O + N
R167 O−3 + O+4 → O3 + O2 + O2
R168 O−3 + O+2 N2 → O3 + O2 + N2
R169 O− + N2+ → O + N2 4 × 10−7
[24]
R170 O−2 + N2+ → O2 + N2 1.6 × 10−7
Three-body ion-ion recombination
R171 O− + O+2 + M → O + O2 + M
R172 O−2 + O+2 + M → O2 + O2 + M
R173 O− + NO+ + M → O + NO + M 2 × 10−25 (𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 /300)−2.5 �𝑋𝑋N2 + 𝑋𝑋O2 � [13]
R174 O−2 + NO+ + M → O2 + NO + M
R175 O−2 + O+4 + M → O2 + O2 + O2 + M
Formation and decomposition of water cluster ions
R176 O+2 + H 2 O + M → O + (H
2 2 O) +M eff
2.6 × 10−28 (𝑇𝑇R176 /300)−4
R177 + (H + −5 eff −4 eff
O2 2 O) + M → O2 + H2 O + M 1.24 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R177 /300) exp(−7610/𝑇𝑇R177 )
R178 + + (H −9
O4 + H2 O → O2 2 O) + O2 1.7 × 10
R179 O+ +
2 N2 + H2 O → O2 (H2 O) + N2 2.2 × 10−9
R180 + (H +
O2 2 O) + H2 O → H3 O + OH + O2 1.3 × 10−9
R181 + + (H eff
H3 O + H2 O + M → H3 O 2 O) + M 3.2 × 10−27 (𝑇𝑇R181 /300)−4 [28]
R182 + (H + −2 eff −4 eff
H3 O 2 O) + M → H3 O + H2 O + M 4.3 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R182 /300) exp(−16430/𝑇𝑇R182 )
R183 + + eff
H3 O (H2 O) + H2 O + M → H3 O (H2 O)2 + M −27
7.4 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R183 /300) −7.5

R184 H3 O+ (H2 O)2 + M → H3 O+ (H2 O) + H2 O + M eff

2 × 10−2 (𝑇𝑇R184 eff
/300)−7.5 exp(−10030/𝑇𝑇R184 )
R185 + + eff
H3 O (H2 O)2 + H2 O + M → H3 O (H2 O)3 + M −27
2.5 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R185 /300) −8.1

R186 H3 O+ (H2 O)3 + M → H3 O+ (H2 O)2 + H2 O + M eff

1.7 × 10−2 (𝑇𝑇R186 eff
/300)−8.1 exp(−8320/𝑇𝑇R186 )
R187 − − (H −28 eff −4
O2 + H2 O + M → O2 2 O) + M 2 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R187 /300)
R188 O− −
2 (H2 O) + M → O2 + H2 O + M
eff
5 × 10−9 (𝑇𝑇R188 eff
/300)−4 exp(−9300/𝑇𝑇R188 )
− (H − (H eff
R189 O2 2 O) + H2 O + M → O2 2 O)2 + M −28
5 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R189 /300) −4
[1], [39]
R190 O− −
2 (H2 O)2 + M → O2 H2 O + H2 O + M
eff
1.25 × 10−8 (𝑇𝑇R190 eff
/300)−4 exp(−4200/𝑇𝑇R190 )
− (H − (H eff
R191 O2 2 O)2 + H2 O + M → O2 2 O)3 + M −29
5 × 10 (𝑇𝑇R191 /300) −4

R192 O− −
2 (H2 O)3 + M → O2 (H2 O)2 + H2 O + M
eff
1.25 × 10−9 (𝑇𝑇R192 eff
/300)−4 exp(−3250/𝑇𝑇R192 )

21
Table A2. Fit coefficients in the form of
exp(− ℏ𝜛𝜛⁄𝑘𝑘B 𝑇𝑇V )
log 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 = 𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖 [log(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁)]𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖 + 𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 /(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁) + 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 (𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁 > 𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁) = exp �𝐶𝐶 � (A4)
1 Td) for electron-impact reactions (𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁)2

where 𝐶𝐶 = 6500 Td2 . The value of 𝐹𝐹 increases as

𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖
𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖 𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁 decreases. 𝐹𝐹 should not increase infinitely
since the excited N2 molecules have to be excited
1 0.2285 2 -242.9 -9.718 first in order to produce super collision effect. Here
2 0.2071 2 -351.3 -9.495 𝐹𝐹is restricted to the bond values corresponding to
3 1.5100 1 -259.9 -12.32 𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸bond ) where 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸bond is here set as 40 Td
23 -1.0640 1 -148.7 -7.166 when the average electron energy 𝜀𝜀̅ = 1.2eV under
24 -0.6161 1 -144.1 -9.197 STP condition. This is the energy required to excite
25 -1.1600 1 -149.8 -6.555 the first four vibrational levels of N2 since the
26 -0.6488 1 -149.4 -8.621 excitation energy of N2 (𝑣𝑣 = 4) is 1.17 eV. Under
43 0 0 -157.2 -8.862 vibrational non-equilibrium condition, the thermal
44 0 0 -163.1 -8.010 dissociation of N2 (R97) can be accelerated and this
45 0 0 -178.9 -8.306 effect is considered by using a two-temperature rate
46 0 0 -232.7 -7.954 coefficient. In the expression of R97, the factor
49 0.9387 1 -262.5 -10.38 𝑍𝑍(𝑇𝑇, 𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 ) is defined as
50 -0.6537 1 -152.7 -6.674 𝑍𝑍(𝑇𝑇, 𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 )
51 -0.1318 1 -170.2 -7.226 1 − exp(− ℏ𝜛𝜛⁄𝑘𝑘B 𝑇𝑇V ) 𝜃𝜃𝐷𝐷 − 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 (A5)
52 -0.9415 1 -149.8 -6.393 = exp �− �
1 − exp(− ℏ𝜛𝜛⁄𝑘𝑘B 𝑇𝑇) 𝑇𝑇m
53 0.1604 1 -165.2 -8.596 where 𝜃𝜃𝐷𝐷 = 113 260 K is the dissociation
54 0.9770 1 -268.8 -11.24 1 1 1
temperature of N2 , 𝛽𝛽 = 3 and = − .
𝑇𝑇m 𝑇𝑇V 𝑇𝑇
Table A1 lists all the chemical reactions considered
in this paper. Rate coefficients are in units of
s −1 , cm3 s −1 and cm6 s −1 for one-, two-, and three- References
body reactions, respectively. All the electron-
impact reaction rates are calculated using
BOLSIG+ [30] with the cross sections published in [1] Gallimberti I 1979 The mechanism of the
[31]. The rate coefficients are best fitted to the long spark formation Journal de Physique
functionlog 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 = 𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖 [log(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁)]𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖 + 𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 /(𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁) + 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 Colloques 193-250
with constants given in table A2. The reduced [2] Bazelyan E M and Raizer Y P 1997 Spark
electric field E/N in all equations is in Townsend discharge (New York: CRC press)
(Td). It is shown that the differences of the [3] Dwyer J R and Uman M A 2014 The
calculated rates are within 5% for all the electron- physics of lightning Physics Reports 534
impact reactions in the regions of E/N = 1-1000 Td 147-241
with different sources of the cross sections, for [4] Bazelyan E M and Raizer Y P 2010
example [47]. Following [13], the effective electron Lightning physics and lightning protection
temperature 𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 (K) is calculated as (New York: CRC Press)
[5] Raizer Y, Milikh G and Shneider M 2010
𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 = 𝑇𝑇 + 𝛼𝛼𝑒𝑒 (𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁)0.46 (A1) Streamer- and leader-like processes in the
where 𝛼𝛼𝑒𝑒 = 3648.6 K Td−0.46. The ion temperature upper atmosphere: Models of red sprites
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (K) is given by and blue jets Journal of Geophysical
Research: Space Physics 115
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 = 𝑇𝑇 + 𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖 (𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁)2 (A2) [6] Riousset J A, Pasko V P and Bourdon A
−2
2010 Air-density-dependent model for
where 𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖 = 0.13 K Td . The effective temperature analysis of air heating associated with
of ions colliding with neutrals is defined as streamers, leaders, and transient luminous
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 𝑇𝑇 + 𝑚𝑚𝑗𝑗 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 events Journal of Geophysical Research:
eff
𝑇𝑇R𝑗𝑗 = (A3) Space Physics (1978–2012) 115
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 + 𝑚𝑚𝑗𝑗
[7] Raizer Y P, Kisin V I and Allen J E 1991
where 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 and 𝑚𝑚𝑗𝑗 are the masses of the ion and Gas discharge physics (Berlin: Springer-
neutral components involved in the reaction. M Verlag)
represents all neutral species (i.e., 𝑛𝑛M = 𝑁𝑁) and the [8] Les Renardières Group 1977 Positive
number fraction is defined as 𝑋𝑋𝑗𝑗 = 𝑛𝑛j /𝑁𝑁. The factor Discharges in Long Air Gaps at Les
𝐹𝐹(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 , 𝐸𝐸/𝑁𝑁) accounts for the acceleration due to Renardières–1975 Results and
Conclusions. In: Electra, Paris, pp 31-153
super elastic collisions with vibrationally excited
N2 and is defined as
[9] Zhao X, He J, He H, Yue Y and Chen W
2016 Number and Dimensional
Distribution of Stems near the Anode in a
1m Air Gap under Positive Pulse. In: The
33rd International Conference on
Lightning Protection (ICLP), (Estoril,
Portugal: IEEE)
[10] Les Renardières Group 1972 Research on
Long Air Gap Discharges at Les
Renardières. In: Electra, Paris, pp 53-157
[11] Les Renardières Group 1974 Research on
Long Air Gap Discharges at Les
Renardières–1973 Results. In: Electra,
Paris, pp 49-156
[12] Les Renardières Group 1981 Negative
Discharges in Long Air Gaps at Les
Renardières–1978 Results. In: Electra,
Paris, pp 31-153
[13] Silva C L and Pasko V P 2013 Dynamics
of streamer-to-leader transition at reduced
air densities and its implications for
propagation of lightning leaders and
gigantic jets Journal of Geophysical
Research: Atmospheres 118 13,561-13,90
[14] Bazelyan E M, Raizer Y P and
Aleksandrov N L 2007 The effect of
reduced air density on streamer-to-leader
transition and on properties of long
positive leader Journal of Physics D:
Applied Physics 40 4133
[15] Popov N A 2009 Study of the formation
and propagation of a leader channel in air
Plasma Physics Reports 35 785-93
[16] Popov N A 2003 Formation and
development of a leader channel in air
Plasma Physics Reports 29 695-708
[17] Waters R, Meek J and Craggs J 1978
Electrical breakdown of gases, p 385
[18] Lalande P, Bondiou-Clergerie A,
Bacchiega G and Gallimberti I 2002
Observations and modeling of lightning
leaders Comptes Rendus Physique 3 1375-
92
[19] Goelian N, Lalande P, Bondiou-Clergerie
A, Bacchiega G L, Gazzani A and
Gallimberti I 1997 A simplified model for
the simulation of positive-spark
development in long air gaps Journal of
Physics D: Applied Physics 30 2441
[20] Becerra M and Cooray V 2006 A self-
consistent upward leader propagation
model Journal of Physics D: Applied
Physics 39 3708
[21] Becerra M and Cooray V 2006 A
simplified physical model to determine the
lightning upward connecting leader
inception Power Delivery, IEEE
Transactions on 21 897-908
[22] Zhou X, Zeng R, Li Z and Zhuang C 2016
A one-dimensional thermo-hydrodynamic
model for upward leader inception
considering gas dynamics and heat
conduction Electric Power Systems
Research 139 16-21
[23] Eggers A 1950 One-dimensional flows of
an imperfect diatomic gas. In: Report No.
959, (California, US: NACA) pp 239-49
[24] Komuro A, Ono R and Oda T 2013
Behaviour of OH radicals in an
atmospheric-pressure streamer discharge
studied by two-dimensional numerical
simulation Journal of Physics D: Applied
Physics 46 175206
[25] Aleksandrov N, Kindysheva S, Nudnova
M and Starikovskiy A Y 2010 Mechanism
of ultra-fast heating in a non-equilibrium
weakly ionized air discharge plasma in
high electric fields Journal of Physics D:
Applied Physics 43 255201
[26] Aleksandrov N 1988 Three-body electron
attachment to a molecule Soviet Physics
Uspekhi 31 101
[27] Aleksandrov N and Bazelyan E 1999
Ionization processes in spark discharge
plasmas Plasma Sources Science and
Technology 8 285
[28] Sieck L W, Heron J T and Green D S 2000
Chemical Kinetics Database and
Predictive Schemes for Humid Air Plasma
Chemistry. Part I: Positive Ion–Molecule
Reactions Plasma Chemistry and Plasma
Processing 20 235-58
[29] Naghizadeh-Kashani Y, Cressault Y and
Gleizes A 2002 Net emission coefficient
of air thermal plasmas Journal of Physics
D: Applied Physics 35 2925
[30] Hagelaar G and Pitchford L 2005 Solving
the Boltzmann equation to obtain electron
transport coefficients and rate coefficients
for fluid models Plasma Sources Science
and Technology 14 722
[31] Morgan database, www.lxcat.net, retrieved
on November 8, 2016.
[32] Popov N A 2001 Investigation of the
mechanism for rapid heating of nitrogen
and air in gas discharges Plasma Physics
Reports 27 886-96
[33] Popov N 2011 Fast gas heating in a
nitrogen–oxygen discharge plasma: I.
Kinetic mechanism Journal of Physics D:
Applied Physics 44 285201
[34] Chernyi G 2004 Physical and Chemical
Processes in Gas Dynamicsphysical and
Chemical Kinetics and Thermodynamics
vol 2 (USA: AIAA)
[35] Popov N 2016 Kinetics of plasma-assisted
combustion: effect of non-equilibrium
excitation on the ignition and oxidation of
combustible mixtures Plasma Sources
Science and Technology 25 043002
[36] Phelps C T and Griffiths R F 1976
Dependence of positive corona streamer
propagation on air pressure and water
vapor content Journal of applied physics
47 2929-34
[37] Ruíz-Vargas G, Yousfi M and de Urquijo J
2010 Electron transport coefficients in the
mixtures of H2O with N2, O2, CO2 and
dry air for the optimization of non-thermal
atmospheric pressure plasmas Journal of
Physics D: Applied Physics 43 455201-6
[38] Morrow R and Lowke J J 1997 Streamer
propagation in air Journal of Physics D:
Applied Physics 30 614
[39] Sentman D, Stenbaek‐Nielsen H,
McHarg M and Morrill J 2008 Plasma
chemistry of sprite streamers Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 113
[40] Pancheshnyi S 2005 Role of
electronegative gas admixtures in streamer
start, propagation and branching
phenomena Plasma Sources Science and
Technology 14 645
[41] Yue Y and He J 2013 Digital time-
resolved optical measurement of discharge
currents in long air gaps Review of
Scientific Instruments 84 085107
[42] Oda A K and Ryo 2012 Numerical
simulation for production of O and N
radicals in an atmospheric-pressure
streamer discharge Journal of Physics D:
Applied Physics 45 265201
[43] Aleksandrov N, Bazelyan E and Novitskii
D 1998 Influence of moisture on the
properties of long streamers in air
Technical physics letters 24 367-8
[44] Liu L and Becerra M 2017 Application of
the position-state separation method to
simulate streamer discharges in arbitrary
geometries IEEE Transactions on Plasma
Science 45
[45] Aleksandrov N L, Bazelyan E M,
Kochetov I V and Dyatko N A 1997 The
ionization kinetics and electric field in the
leader channel in long air gaps Journal of
Physics D: Applied Physics 30 1616
[46] Kossyi I, Kostinsky A Y, Matveyev A and
Silakov V 1992 Kinetic scheme of the
non-equilibrium discharge in nitrogen-
oxygen mixtures Plasma Sources Science
and Technology 1 207
[47] Phelps database, www.lxcat.net, retrieved
on November 24, 2016.