Electronimpact excitation of Ar^{2+}
J. M. Munoz Burgos  S. D. Loch  C. P. Ballance  R. F. Boivin
Department of Physics, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
Received 28 January 2009 / Accepted 12 March 2009
Abstract
Context. Emission from Ar III is seen in planetary nebulae, in H II regions, and from laboratory plasmas. The analysis of such spectra requires accurate electron impact excitation data.
Aims. The aim of this work is to improve the electron impact excitation data available for Ar^{2+}, for application in studies of planetary nebulae and laboratory plasma spectra. The effects of the new data on diagnostic line ratios are also studied.
Methods. Electronimpact excitation collision strengths have been calculated using the RMatrix IntermediateCoupling FrameTransformation method and the RMatrix BreitPauli method. Excitation cross sections are calculated between all levels of the configurations 3s^{2}3p^{4}, 3s3p^{5}, 3p^{6}, 3p^{5}3d, and 3s^{2}3p^{3}nl (3d nl 5s). Maxwellian effective collision strengths are generated from the collision strength data.
Results. Good agreement is found in the collision strengths calculated using the two RMatrix methods. The collision strengths are compared with literature values for transitions within the 3s^{2}3p^{4} configuration. The new data has a small effect on
values obtained from the
line ratio, and a larger effect on the
values obtained from the
line ratio. The final effective collision strength data is archived online^{}.
Key words: atomic data  atomic processes  ISM: planetary nebulae: general
1 Introduction
Argon is an important species for TOKAMAK studies, being used as a gas to radiatively cool the divertor and as a potential means of mitigating plasma disruptions (Whyte et al. 2002). In particular, Ar III lines have been shown to provide useful spectral diagnostics for astrophysical studies (Keenan & McCann 1990; Keenan & Conlon 1993). The 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{3}P_{1,2}) and 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) transitions of Ar III emit strongly in planetary nebulae (Aller & Keyes 1987; PerezMontero et al. 2007), and the 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{3}P_{1}) 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) transition is seen in H II regions (Pipher et al. 1984). Transitions within the first 5 levels of Ar^{2+} have been shown to be very useful as spectral diagnostics. The ratio of has been shown to be a good indicator of electron temperature (DeRobertis et al. 1987; Keenan & McCann 1990), and the ratio is density sensitive in the range 10^{2}10^{8} (cm^{3}) (Keenan & Conlon 1993).
There has been much recent interest in improving the atomic data available for the low ion stages of argon, in particular for the excitation data that is required to model collision dominated plasmas. RMatrix with pseudostates electronimpact excitation data was recently calculated for neutral argon (Ballance & Griffin 2008) and Ar^{+} (Griffin et al. 2007). Madison et al. (2004) calculated electronimpact excitation from the 3p^{5}3d states of neutral argon using an RMatrix method and two first order distortedwave methods. For Ar^{2+}, Johnson & Kingston (1990)calculated excitations within the configuration 3s^{2}3p^{4} and 3s3p^{5} of Ar^{2+} using the RMatrix method. Their results were generated in LS coupling and transformed to levelresolution using the JAJOM (Saraph 1978) method. Later Galavis et al. (1995) also used the RMatrix method to calculate levelresolved excitations within the 3s^{2}3p^{4} configuration as part of the IRON project. They used a large configurationinteraction calculation to get the atomic structure, followed by a smaller collision calculation. Burgess et al. (1997) pointed out that the 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}D) 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}S) quadrupole effective collision strength of Galavis et al. (1995) did not appear to go to the expected high energy Born limit point. Galavis et al. (1998) then found that including more partial waves in the calculation for this transition increased the collision strength at higher energies, making it trend closer to the expected limit point. Neither the Johnson & Kingston (1990) or the Galavis et al. (1995) calculations include n=4 states in their target configurations.
On the experimental side, Boffard et al. (2007) measured optical emission cross sections for excitation from the ground state of neutral Ar to excited states. Jung et al. (2007) measured excitation cross sections for excitation of the metastable levels of neutral Ar to the 3p^{5}5p configuration. Strinic et al. (2007) measured excitation coefficients for Ar^{+}. To the best of our knowledge there are no experimental measurements of excitation cross sections for Ar^{2+}.
The aim of this work is to use the RMatrix method to calculate electronimpact excitation of Ar^{2+}, including excitation up to the 5s subshell. This should improve upon the previous RMatrix calculations for the first nine levels of this ion by including more resonance channels. It will also provide accurate atomic data for the excited configurations, which have not been calculated before using the RMatrix method. With increased computational resources, RMatrix calculations have developed from relatively small LScoupled calculations, to large calculations involving hundreds of levels. Initially, levelresolved calculations were done by transforming LS calculations using the JAJOM (Saraph 1978) method, however this was found to contain potential problems, see Griffin et al. (1998), so the intermediatecoupling frametransformation method (ICFT) was introduced by Griffin et al. (1998). Levelresolved BreitPauli calculations also became feasible because of large scale parallelization of the codes and were found to produce very similar results to the ICFT method, see Griffin et al. (1998). The ICFT method is computationally less demanding as it requires the diagonalization of LSresolved Hamiltonians rather than LSJresolved Hamiltonians. As a large number of levels are involved in our calculation, resulting in thousands of transitions, we use the ICFT calculation as a consistency check on our BreitPauli calculation. We also note that fully relativistic Dirac RMatrix calculations are also now possible for systems involving hundred of levels, see for example Ballance & Griffin (2008). We do not expect fully relativistic effects to be important for Ar^{2+}.
Coupling to the target continuum was found to be large for neutral argon excitation data, decreasing the collision strength by up to a factor of two above the ionization threshold, see Ballance & Griffin (2008). The effect was found to be smaller, but still significant for Ar^{+}, Griffin et al. (2007) found up to 30% decrease in collision strength above the ionization threshold. We expect the effect to be small for Ar^{2+}, thus a nonpseudostate RMatrix calculation should be sufficient. However, we examined our collision strength data above the ionization threshold for evidence of an artificial rise in the collision strength due to continuum coupling effects being omitted.
We will present results from three RMatrix calculations. We will first compare an ICFT and BreitPauli calculation as a check on our results. Then we will show results from a BreitPauli calculation with the first 9 level energies shifted to NIST (2008) energy values. This last calculation will then be compared with literature values, and the effect of the new data on diagnostic line ratios will be discussed.
In the next section we will describe the theoretical methods used. Section 3 will then show the results of the comparison between the different theoretical methods and Sect. 4 will present our conclusions.
2 Theory
2.1 Atomic structure calculation and optimization
We use the AUTOSTRUCTURE (Badnell 1986) code, a many body BreitPauli structure package, to calculate the structure of the target used in our collision calculations. The graphical interface to AUTOSTRUCTURE, GASP (Graphical Autostructure Package, http://vanadium.rollins.edu/GASP/GASP.html) was used to run the AUTOSTRUCTURE code. We have included the following configurations in our calculation: 3s^{2}3p^{4}, 3s3p^{5}, 3p^{6}, 3p^{5}3d and 3s^{2}3p^{3}nl (3d nl 5s). We found a significant improvement in the first 9 energy levels by including the 3p^{5}3d configuration. The average percentage difference within the first 9 energy levels and those from NIST (2008) was 11.16% excluding the 3p^{5}3d configuration, and 4.83% by including it in our structure. The same configurations were used in our scattering calculation.
Our structure was optimized by using a singular value decomposition (Golub & Van Loan 1989) method to give best agreement with selected NIST (2008) values for the level energies and line strengths. The orbitals were determined by using a ThomasFermiDiracAmaldi (TFDA) statistical potential. To optimize our structure we make use of scale factors for the wavefunctions in each orbital. These scale factors, or s, enable us to adjust the radial extent of the wavefunctions for each orbital. These small adjustments allow some fine tuning of the atomic structure and the associated line strengths.
We developed a code (LAMDA) to optimize our atomic structure by varying the scale factors. This is similar to the approach of Bautista (2008). In order to monitor and compare the quality of our atomic structure, we make use of the NIST table quantities. The selected quantities that we wish to reproduce are the NIST energy (levels or terms) , and either the line strengths , the collision strengths , or Einstein coefficients . In our modeling we prefer to use line strengths due to their greater independence of energies. Some of the NIST line strengths have a big uncertainty listed on the tables, therefore our code is able to chose the ones that have a small listed error, in this case we chose line strengths with less than 10% error. We optimized on the 114 NIST energy levels that were also in our structure calculation. Since the energies and line strengths depend upon the scale factors (s), we linearize both and approximate the relation between our chosen NIST quantities and our modeled values as , and .
To include both of these different quantities in our optimization we
normalize both of them with their respective NIST values, therefore
(1) 
(2) 
This way we get our complete model for any n number of energies, any m number of line strengths, and l number of scale factors as
(3) 
We rewrite the model in vector notation as where we have defined as the normalized vector for the difference of quantities, as the normalized Jacobian matrix, and as the correction scale factors vector. We write the solution of the vector of the correction of the scale factors as . Having the correction for the scale factors we use them to get the new scale factors . With these new scale factors we recompute our model and compare it again with the NIST selected quantities. We rerun the whole process again until we are satisfied with the results. To measure the success of the optimization we compare the initial and final values for the least square which is given by . To get the inverse of the normalized Jacobian matrix which may not be square , and it may be singular. We decompose the matrix by using Singular Value Decomposition (Golub & Van Loan 1989). We express as
(4) 
Where is a unitary matrix, is a diagonal matrix with nonnegative real numbers on the diagonal, and denotes the conjugate transpose of , an unitary matrix. These matrices have the following properties
 the columns of form a set of orthonormal input or analyzing basis vector directions for ;
 the columns of form a set orthonormal output basis vector directions for ;
 the matrix contains the singular values, which can be thought of as scalar gain controls by which each corresponding input is multiplied to give a corresponding output.
(5) 
The matrix is a diagonal matrix that contains K singular values. The number K determines the rank of the matrix, and the singular values are ordered in descending value . The K rank of the matrix represents the number of ``dimensions''. The difficulty is to select the p number of singular values that we need to compute the pseudoinverse where . Since we need to compute the vector of the scale factor corrections we choose to put some physical constraints in order not to affect the different atomic orbitals by too much while we optimize others. Therefore we choose a range of values for the total scale factors given by
With this restriction in place we select the p number of singular values to compute the singular values inverse matrix . There is not a specific method to know how many p singular values we need to compute the inverse of the singular values matrix. We use the number of singular values we need to meet condition (6). If condition (6) is not met, we multiply the Jacobian matrix by a certain factor greater than one and then compute the corrections again. If condition (6) still goes unmet, we again multiply the Jacobian matrix by a greater factor and recompute the optimization. The reason we multiply the Jacobian matrix by a factor greater than one is to increase the value of its derivatives, thereby reducing the size of the corrections for the scale factors and to satisfy condition (6).
We obtained good results from the optimization process with a before the optimization and a after the optimization. That represents an improvement of 92.01% in our value. We found that this optimization method gave us better results than AUTOSTRUCTURE's default optimization of minimization of energies which gives a . We also found better average percentage difference within the first 9 energy levels and those from NIST. AUTOSTRUCTURE's default optimization gives a 20.03% difference while our optimization method gives 4.83%.
2.2 The RMatrix method
The scattering calculation was performed with our set of parallel
RMatrix programs (Mitnik et al. 2003; Ballance &
Griffin 2004), which are extensively modified versions of
the serial RMATRIX I programs of Berrington et al.
(1995). The method is based on partitioning the
configuration space in to two regions by a sphere of radius a
centered on the target nucleus. In the internal region
electron exchange and correlation between the scattered electron and
the the Nelectron target atom or ion are important and the
(N+1)electron collision complex behaves in a similar way to a bound
state. In the external region r > a electron exchange between the
scattered electron and the target can be neglected if the radius a
is chosen so that the charge distribution of the target is contained
within the sphere. Outside the RMatrix box, the total wavefunction
for a given LS symmetry is expanded in basis states given by:
(7) 
where v_{i}(r) are radial continuum functions obtained by solution of radial asymptotic coupled differential equations. The inner and outer solutions are matched at the edge of the RMatrix box to extract collision strengths.
In this paper we have employed both the BreitPauli and ICFT
(Intermediate Coupling Frame Transformation) RMatrix methods for
electronimpact excitation (Griffin et al. 1998). The
original impetus for the ICFT approach was to reduce the time
consuming diagonalisation of each large BreitPauli Hamiltonian. In
the ICFT method, as each partial wave includes only the massvelocity
and Darwin corrections to the LS
N+1 Hamiltonian and omits the
spinorbit interaction; this greatly reduces the size of each
symmetric matrix to be diagonalised. In the outer region, the
resulting LScoupled scattering S or Kmatrices are transformed to jK
coupling by means of an algebraic transformation to provide
leveltolevel excitation cross sections. This transformation involves
TCC's (Term Coupling Coefficients) which are calculated from a
BreitPauli structure calculation (including spinorbit interaction),
to express the eigenvectors for the resulting levels as linear
combinations of the multiconfiguration mixed terms. The coefficients
of this expansion are the TCCs. With the implementation of a parallel
versions of our codes, and for the scale of calculations described in
this paper, both methods would take a similar amount of time, however
the ICFT approach remains better suited for small memory serial
machines and/or small parallel clusters as calculations increase in
size. The consistency of results between ICFT and BreitPauli
calculations reported later in this paper should provide a lower bound
on the error we would expect in the subsequent collisionalradiative
modeling. Effective collision strengths are generated from our
RMatrix collision strength data via convolution with a Maxwellian
electron distribution.
(8) 
where E_{j} is the energy of the outgoing electron and is the collision strength between i and j. We will make use of BurgessTully plots (Burgess et al. 1997) to show effective collision strengths from threshold to the infinite energy point on a single plot. For the type2 transition that we will consider, this involves the following transformations:
(9)  
(10) 
where E_{ij} is the energy of the transition i to j, and C is an arbitrary constant. We will use a Cvalue of 5.0 to compare with the BurgessTully results shown in Galavis et al. (1998).
2.3 Collisional radiative model
We use the ADAS (http://www.adas.ac.uk)
suite of codes for our population and
emission modeling. These codes are based on collisionalradiative
theory, first developed by Bates et al. (1962) and later
generalized by Summers & Hooper (1983). The method
aims to encompass both the low density coronal and high density local
thermodynamic equilibrium description of an ion and to track the
shifting balance between radiative and collisional processes. The ion
consists of a set of levels with radiative and collisional couplings.
Ionization and recombination to and from metastables of the next
ionization stage (i.e. the plus ion stage) are included. The time
dependence of the population (N_{i}) of an arbitrary level i in ion
stage +z is given by
=  
(11) 
where is the free electron density. A is the usual Einstein coefficients, is the Auger rate, and is the electron collisional excitation/deexcitation rate. , and denote radiative, dielectronic and threebody recombination, respectively. denotes the ground and metastable indices of the z+1 ion stage. It can be shown that we can reduce the equation to a more compact form.
(12) 
with a populating term for
(13) 
a loss term
(14) 
and a composite recombination coefficient . Setting the time dependence of the excited states to zero allows the population of the excited levels to be determined as functions of the ground and metastable populations of the Z ion stage () and of the Z+1 ion stage ( )
(15) 
A spectral line intensity ratio for a homogeneous plasma is evaluated via
(16) 
and an energy intensity ratio is given by
=  
=  (17) 
When comparing with spectral line ratios observed from planetary nebulae we will use this latter equation, since the observations will be of the energy absorbed at a given wavelength.
3 Results
Our results can be split into three main areas: structure, collisional data and emission modeling.
3.1 Structure
Our final optimized structure consisted of configurations 3s^{2}3p^{4}, 3s3p^{5}, 3p^{6}, 3p^{5}3d, and 3s^{2}3p^{3}nl (3d nl 5s), giving a total of 186 levels. Our optimized lambda parameters, obtained using our singular value decomposition code, are given in Table 1. Our structure was optimized using NIST energy levels and line strengths. The level energies from our structure calculation are given in Table 2. We show results for the first 29 levels, the remaining energies can be found in the archived datafile (see http://wwwcfadc.phy.ornl.gov/data_and_codes). The average percentage error between our calculated energies and the NIST energies is 3.46%. The largest error is for the 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) level. Because of the diagnostic importance of the transitions within the 3p^{4} configuration, we will shift to NIST values all the energies associated with the 3p^{4} and 3s3p^{5} configurations. This will be described in the next section.
Table 1: Final values for the 1s5s orbitals.
Table 2: Energies in Rydbergs for the lowest 29 levels of Ar^{2+}.
As a further check on our structure, we present a selection of our calculated radiative rates in Table 3, we show our calculated radiative rates compared with NIST (2008) values and the calculations of Mendoza & Zeippen (1983). The average percentage difference between the NIST Einstein A coefficients and ours is 65.36%. We note that for most of the transitions the NIST uncertainty estimates on the Einstein A coefficients are 25% or 50%, our Einstein A coefficients are in general within the NIST uncertainty estimates. In the dataset we use for our emission modeling the Einstein A coefficients for transitions within the 3s^{2}3p^{4} configuration will be replaced by the calculated values of Mendoza & Zeippen (1983). This will allow us to make a direct comparison with previous modeling results from the literature, highlighting the differences due to the excitation data only. However, our final archived dataset will contain our calculated Einstein A coefficients.
3.2 Scattering calculations
The orbitals used in our RMatrix calculations were generated from the AUTOSTRUCTURE (Badnell 1986) code using the optimized parameters from Table 1. Our exchange calculation included partial waves from L=0 to L=14 (J=0.5 to J=11.5 for the BreitPauli calculation). The nonexchange calculation went from L=10 up to L=40 (J=12.5 to J=37.5). The contributions from higher partial waves were then calculated for dipole transitions using the method originally described by Burgess (1970) and for the nondipole transitions assuming a geometric series in L, using energy ratios, with special procedures for handling transitions between nearly degenerate terms. Using AUTOSTRUCTURE (Badnell 1986), we also calculated infinite energy Bethe/Born limits, allowing us to extend the effective collision strengths and rate coefficients to temperature ranges above the highest calculated collision strength. In our outer region calculations, we used 80 000 energy mesh points over the resonance region (up to 6 Ryd) and 500 energy mesh points for the higher energies (6 Ryd to 12 Ryd).
Table 3: Comparisons of selected radiative rates for transitions in Ar^{2+}.
It has been shown by Griffin et al. (1998) that an ICFT calculation would produce the same results as a BreitPauli calculation. As a check on our calculation we performed an ICFT and a BreitPauli calculation using the same set of radial orbitals for both. Figure 1 shows the ICFT and BreitPauli collision strength for the 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}P_{2}) 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) transition. Although small differences can be seen, the two calculations are clearly very close to each other.
This level of agreement was typical for the collision strengths calculated. The 186 levels in our Ar^{2+} calculation give rise to 17 205 transitions. We used the scatterplot method of Witthoeft et al. (2007) to compare the Maxwellian effective collision strengths for all of the transitions at one time. This method takes the ratio of effective collision strengths for all transitions for a given temperature and plots this ratio against one of the effective collision strengths. Thus a ratio of one would indicate the datasets are the same. This method also allows one to see the strength of the transitions that are in disagreement. We chose an electron temperature of 1.55 eV as one typical of planetary nebula and low enough to strongly sample the resonance region of the collision strengths. Of the 17 205 transitions, 82% of the ICFT effective collision strengths are within 10% of the BreitPauli values. 94% of the ICFT effective collision strengths are within 20% of the BreitPauli values and 98% are within 40%. Of the transitions that show a difference, they are in general for weaker transitions involving highly excited levels with effective collision strengths that are extremely sensitive to the resonance contributions on top of a weak background. These transitions are not likely to make a difference in population modeling. For example, the transitions within the 3p^{4} configuration are within 4% of each other. Population modeling using the ICFT and BreitPauli datasets produces essentially the same excited populations for all cases we investigated. For the final data set we used the BreitPauli results.
Figure 1: Comparison of the ICFT and BreitPauli collision strengths for the 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) transition. The dashed line shows the ICFT results and the solid line shows the BreitPauli results. 

Open with DEXTER 
Figure 2: Scatter plot showing the ratio of effective collision strengths at Te = 1.55 eV between two BreitPauli RMatrix calculations. One had 40 000 energy mesh point in the resonance region, the other had 80 000 energy mesh points in the resonance region. We show the ratio of effective collision strength vs. the effective collision strength of the 40 000 energy mesh calculation. 

Open with DEXTER 
To provide the most accurate data for modeling, a BreitPauli calculation was then done with shifts to NIST energies for the first 9 energy levels, due to their importance in spectral line diagnostics. To test the convergence of our energy mesh over the resonance region we performed a series of calculations using different meshes, namely 10 000, 20 000, 40 000 and 80 000 mesh points in the resonance region. We calculated Maxwellian averaged effective collision strengths for each of these meshes and compared the files. Figure 2 shows a scatterplot comparison of our BreitPauli calculation using 40 000 and 80 000 mesh points in the resonance region. Of the 17 205 transitions, most are converged, with a few outliers. There was a progression of convergence as the mesh was increased. For example, comparing calculations with 20 000 and 40 000 energy mesh points in the resonance region we found that 93.4% of the transitions were converged to within 2% of each other. Comparing the 20 000 and 40 000 energy mesh point calculations, 96.4% of the transitions were converged to within 2% of each other. Finally, comparing the 40 000 and 80 000 energy mesh point calculations, 98.4% of the transitions were converged to within 2% of each other, with 95.5% being within 1%. Thus, we believe that our 80 000 enegy mesh point calculation is converged.
Figure 3: Comparison of selected BreitPauli collision strengths (with energy shifts included for the first 9 energy levels) with Johnson & Kingston (1990). Plot a) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{0}) transition. Plot b) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P) 3p^{4}(^{1}D) transition, where the levelresolved BreitPauli collision strengths have been summed to give the termresolved collision strength. Plot c) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P) 3p^{4}(^{1}S) transition, where the levelresolved BreitPauli collision strengths have been summed to give the termresolved collision strength. Plot d) shows the 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) transition. In all plots the solid line shows the BreitPauli results and the dotdashed line shows the Results of Johnson & Kingston (1990). 

Open with DEXTER 
Of the previous RMatrix calculations, we can compare with the collision strengths from Johnson & Kingston (1990), see Fig. 3 for a comparison of a selection of transitions. There are clear differences in the resonance positions and heights, with the background collision strengths being in good agreement. The differences in the resonance contributions may be due to the well known problems with the JAJOM method (Griffin et al. 1998) that was used by Johnson & Kingston (1990) to transform the LS results to LSJ resolution.
We can compare our effective collision strength results with the IRON project data of (Galavis et al. 1995), and with the tabulated values of Johnson & Kingston (1990). Figure 4 shows the comparison for a selection of transitions. Table 4 shows our calculated effective collision strengths for transitions between the 3s^{2}3p^{4} levels. At the highest temperatures, our effective collision strengths are consistently higher than the previous calculations. Since we have a similar background crosssection, the differences are due to the extra resonance channels included in our calculation, and to a lesser extent differences in our topup procedures. Most transitions show differences at low temperatures where sensitivity to the low energy resonance contribution is strongest. This is particularly true for the transitions 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) and 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}), shown in Fig. 4e and f). In both cases our effective collision strengths are smaller than previous calculations at the lowest temperatures. This is most likely due to the contributions from near threshold resonances. For example, the 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) transition has contribution due to a reported 3s3p^{5}(^{3}P)3d(^{2}P) resonance that occurs at the excitation threshold in the previous RMatrix calculations of Johnson & Kingston (1990). Galavis et al. (1995) also point out the large contribution from a near threshold resonance in their calculation of this transition. The near threshold resonance in the 3p^{4}(^{3}P) 3p^{4}(^{1}S) transition is likely to be due to the same resonance. We do not see this near threshold resonance in our calculations for either of these transitions. As will be seen later, these two transitions are key for spectral diagnostics. Thus, we performed a smaller RMatrix calculation, using the same configurations as Johnson & Kingston (1990). In this calculation we do see a near threshold resonance in the 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) transition, as seen in previous work. We identified the resonances as belonging to the J=3/2 partial wave. Investigation of the eigenphase sum shows that this broad resonance belongs to the 3s3p^{5}3d configuration, and is shifted to lower energy in our larger BreitPauli calculation. Thus it does not contribute to our collision strength. Our resonance position should be more accurate, due to the larger number of configurations in our structure calculation. However, this resonance is very close to the excitation threshold and is clearly sensitive to configuration interaction effects. Experimental measurements of this collision strength would be very useful.
Figure 4: Comparison of selected BreitPauli effective collision strengths (with energy shifts included for the first 9 energy levels) with Johnson & Kingston (1990) and with Galavis et al. (1995,1998). Plot a) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{1}) transition. Plot b) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{0}) transition. Plot c) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{1}) 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{0}) transition. Plot d) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) transition. Plot e) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) transition. Plot f) shows the 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) transition. In all plots the solid line shows the BreitPauli RMatrix results, the dashed line shows the results of Galavis et al. (1995) and the dotdashed line shows the results of Johnson & Kingston (1990). In plot f) the doubledot dashed line shows the results of Galavis et al. (1998). 

Open with DEXTER 
Table 4: Effective collision strengths for transitions between the 3s^{2}3p^{4} levels.
At higher temperatures for the 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) transition we verify the findings of Burgess et al. (1997), and Galavis et al. (1998) that contributions from higher partial waves are required for the effective collision strength to tend to the right limit point. We plot our results for this transition in a BurgessTully plot in Fig. 5 to highlight the high energy behaviour. Our results go to a limit point of 1.72, close to the value of 1.68 expected by Burgess et al. (1997). As pointed out by Galavis et al. (1998), the rise in slope of the BurgessTully plot towards the limit point does not happen until relatively close to the limit point.
Figure 5: Burgess Tully plot of effective collision strength vs. reduced temperature (X). Results are shown for transition 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}). In the reduced temperature scale zero corresponds to the value at threshold and one corresponds to the value at the infinite energy point. The solid line shows the results from our BreitPauli RMatrix calculation, the dashed line shows the results from the RMatrix calculation of Galavis et al. (1995) and the doubledot dashed line shows the results of Galavis et al. (1998) where more partial waves were included compared to their previous calculation. The solid square shows the limit point of Burgess et al. (1997). 

Open with DEXTER 
3.3 Emission modeling
Our BreitPauli atomic dataset was used to model commonly observed
forbidden transitions of Ar III. Our modeling data consists of the
BreitPauli excitation data, including shifts to NIST energies for the
first 9 levels. Our dipole Einstein A coefficients were evaluated in
our RMatrix calculation. Our nondipole Einstein A coefficients
came from an AUTOSTRUCTURE calculation. For the purpose of the
modeling work in this paper we use the same Einstein A coefficients
for transitions within the 3p^{4} configuration as those of Mendoza
& Zeippen (1983). These were the Einstein A coefficients
used in previous emission models using RMatrix data from Keenan &
McCann (1990), and Keenan & Conlon (1993).
Using the same Einstein A coefficients will allow us to highlight
differences in emission modeling due to the excitation collision
data. The final set of data that is available online will include our
computed Einstein A coefficients for all the transitions. We first
consider the temperature sensitive energy intensity ratio
R_{1}  =  
=  (18) 
where the numbers in the subscripts of N and A denote the index numbers of the energy levels involved in the transitions. The ratio is insensitive to electron density up to (cm^{3}). Our results are shown in Fig. 6. We also calculated this ratio using the data of Johnson & Kingston (1990) and the data of (Galavis et al. 1995), where we used Einstein A coefficients from Mendoza & Zeippen (1983) for the radiative rates. We note that the ratio we calculate for the Johnson & Kingston (1990) data is equivalent to that shown by Keenan & McCann (1990). Our R_{1} ratio is close to that obtained from the two previous RMatrix calculations. The excited populations are coronal at low densities and are only sensitive to excitation rate coefficients from the ground to the 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) level, excitation from the ground to 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) level, and radiative decay from the 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) and 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) levels. Since we use the same Einstein A coefficients in all of our calculations, the differences in our ratio are primarily because our effective collision strength for 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) is smaller than archived data, due to differences in low energy resonance contributions. Our new RMatrix data does not make a large difference to the temperatures diagnosed from measured line ratios. Our diagnosed temperatures are within 10% of those diagnosed using the older RMatrix datasets.
Figure 6: R_{1} line ratio as a function of electron temperature. The results are calculated at (cm^{3}), though the results are insensitive to electron density up to (cm^{3}). The solid line shows the results using the new RMatrix BreitPauli collision data. The dotdashed line show the results using the data of Johnson & Kingston (1990) and the dashed line shows the results using the data of Galavis et al. (1995). 

Open with DEXTER 
Our results for the density sensitive energy intensity ratio
R_{2}  =  
=  (19) 
is shown in Fig. 7. We again compare with calculations using the data of Johnson & Kingston (1990) and the data of Galavis et al. (1995). The modeling using the Johnson and Kingston data is equivalent to the ratio shown in Keenan & Conlon (1993). For each temperature one can see that all the R_{2} ratios go from their coronal value at low densities to their local thermodynamic equilibrium value by (cm^{3}). Our ratios are consistently lower than those from the previous RMatrix calculations. This is primarily due to our collisional excitation rate from the ground to the 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) being smaller than those from the previous calculations. Our new data makes a significant difference to electron densities diagnosed using the above line ratio. For example, the line ratio for planetary nebula NGC 6572 shown in Keenan & Conlon (1993) is 0.23 and is for an electron temperature of 10 000 K. The new RMatrix data gives a value of log_{10} ( cm^{3}) compared with the value given by Keenan & Conlon using the data of Johnson & Kingston (1990) of log_{10} cm^{3}). We found that cascades from higher levels do not affect either the R_{1} or R_{2} line ratios. Measurement of the excitation cross sections for these forbidden transitions of Ar^{2+} would be very useful, especially measurements that could determine if there is a near threshold resonance in the 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) and 3p^{4}(^{3}P) 3p^{4}(^{1}S) transitions. Our RMatrix data also includes excitations up to excited configurations. We do not show any modeling results for transitions involving these configurations. We expect this data to be of high quality and intend to use the data to model Ar III spectra in the future. Our final dataset is archived online at the Oak Ridge atomic data center (http://wwwcfadc.phy.ornl.gov/data_and_codes) and in the ADAS database (http://www.adas.ac.uk). Tables 2, 3, and 4 are also available in electronic form at the CDS.
Figure 7: R_{2} line ratio as a function of electron density. The results are calculated for a range of electron temperatures, namely 5000, 8000, 10 000, 15 000, 20 000 and 30 000 K. The lowest line ratio is the 5000 K results, with the higher ratios showing the progressively higher temperature results. The solid line shows the results using the new RMatrix BreitPauli collision data. The dotdashed line show the results using the data of Johnson & Kingston (1990) and the dashed line shows the results using the data of Galavis et al. (1995). 

Open with DEXTER 
4 Conclusions
The results of a 186 level RMatrix calculations are presented for Ar^{2+}.
 1.
 The results from an ICFT calculation are shown to be close to those from a BreitPauli calculation. Our final RMatrix calculation consists of a BreitPauli calculation with the first 9 levels shifted to NIST energies.
 2.
 We compare the results of this calculation with literature values for transitions within the 3p^{4} configuration, finding differences at low temperatures due to low energy resonance contributions.
 3.
 We calculate one temperature sensitive and one density sensitive line ratio, finding that our new data does not make a significant differences to the temperature diagnostic, but does have a sizeable affect on the density diagnostic, compared to values calculated using previous RMatrix data.
 4.
 Our final effective collision strengths are now available on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Atomic Data Web (http://wwwcfadc.phy.ornl.gov/data_and_codes) and in the ADAS (http://www.adas.ac.uk) database. The data presented at Tables 2, 3, and 4 is also available in electronic form at the CDS.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by US DoE grant DEFG0299ER54367 to Rollins College and US DoE grants DEFG0596ER54348 and DEFG0201ER54633 to Auburn University. Most of the computational work was carried out at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center in Oakland, California, and at the Alabama Supercomputer in Huntsville, Alabama.
References
 Aller, L. H., & Keyes, C. D. 1987, ApJS, 65, 405 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Badnell, N. R. 1986, J. Phys. B, 19, 3827 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Badnell, N. R., Pindzola, M. S., Bray, I., & Griffin, D. C. 1998, J. Phys. B, 31, 911 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
 Ballance, C. P., & Griffin, D. C. 2004, J. Phys. B, 37, 2943 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Ballance, C. P., & Griffin, D. C. 2008, J. Phys. B. 41, 065201 (In the text)
 Ballance, C. P., & Griffin, D. C. 2008, J. Phys. B, 41, 195205 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Bates, D. R., Kingston, A. E., & McWhirter, R. W. P. 1962, Proc. Royal Soc. London, 267, 297 [NASA ADS] (In the text)
 Bautista, M. A. 2008, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys, 41, 65701 [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Berrington, K. A., Eissner, W. B., & Norrington, P. H. 1995, Comput. Phys. Commun., 92, 290 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Boffard, J. B., Chiaro, B., Lin, C. C., & Weber, T. 2007, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 93, 831 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Burgess, A. 1970, J. Phys. B, 7, L364 [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Burgess, A., Chidichimo, M. C., & Tully, J. A. 1997, J. Phys. B, 30, 33 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 De Robertis, M. M., Dufour, R. J., & Hunt, R. W. 1987, J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Can., 81, 195 [NASA ADS] (In the text)
 Galavis, M. E., Mendoza, C., & Zeippen, C. J. 1995, A&AS, 111, 347 [NASA ADS] (In the text)
 Galavis, M. E., Mendoza, C., & Zeippen, C. J. 1998, A&AS, 133, 245 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] (In the text)
 Golub, G. H., & Van Loan, C.F. 1989, Matrix Computations, 2nd edn. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press), 8.3, Chap. 12 (In the text)
 Griffin, D. C., Badnell, N. R., & Pindzola, M. S. 1998, J. Phys. B, 31, 3713 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Griffin, D. C., Ballance, C. P., Loch, S. D., & Pindzola, M. S. 2007, J. Phys. B, 40, 4537 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Johnson, C. T., & Kingston, A.E. 1990, J. Phys. B, 23, 3393 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Jung, R. O., Boffard, J. B., Anderson, L. W., & Lin, C. C. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 052707 [NASA ADS] (In the text)
 Keenan, F. P., & McCann, S. M. 1990, J. Phys. B, 23, L423 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Keenan, F. P., & Conlon, E. S. 1993, ApJ, 410, 426 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Madison, D. H., Dasgupta, A., Bartschat, K., & Vaid, D. 2004, J. Phys. B, 37, 1073 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Mendoza, C., & Zeippen, C. J. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 981 [NASA ADS] (In the text)
 Mitnik, D. M., Griffin, D. C., Ballance, C. P., & Badnell, N. R. 2003, J. Phys. B, 36, 717 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 PerezMontero, E., Hagele, G. F., Contini, T., & Diaz, A. I. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 125 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Pipher, J. L., Helfer, H. L., Herter, T., et al. 1984, ApJ, 285, 174 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Ralchenko, Yu., Kramida, A. E., Reader, J., & NIST ASD Team. 2008, NIST Atomic Spectra Database, version 3.1.5, http://physics.nist.gov/asd3, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (In the text)
 Saraph, H. E. 1978, Comput. Phys. Commun., 15, 247 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Strinic, A. I., Malovic, G. N., Petrovic, Z. L., & Sadeghi, N. 2007, Plasma, 75, 052707 (In the text)
 Summer, H. P., & Hooper, M. 1983, Plasma Physics, 25, 1311 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Whyte, D. G., Jernigan, T. C., Humphreys, D. A., et al. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 055001 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
 Witthoeft, M. C., Whiteford, A. D., & Badnell, N. R. 2007, J. Phys. B, 40, 2969 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] (In the text)
Footnotes
 ... online^{}
 Tables 24 are also available in electronic form at the CDS viaanonymous ftp to cdsarc.ustrasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.ustrasbg.fr/cgibin/qcat?J/A+A/500/1253
All Tables
Table 1: Final values for the 1s5s orbitals.
Table 2: Energies in Rydbergs for the lowest 29 levels of Ar^{2+}.
Table 3: Comparisons of selected radiative rates for transitions in Ar^{2+}.
Table 4: Effective collision strengths for transitions between the 3s^{2}3p^{4} levels.
All Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of the ICFT and BreitPauli collision strengths for the 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3s^{2}3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) transition. The dashed line shows the ICFT results and the solid line shows the BreitPauli results. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 2: Scatter plot showing the ratio of effective collision strengths at Te = 1.55 eV between two BreitPauli RMatrix calculations. One had 40 000 energy mesh point in the resonance region, the other had 80 000 energy mesh points in the resonance region. We show the ratio of effective collision strength vs. the effective collision strength of the 40 000 energy mesh calculation. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 3: Comparison of selected BreitPauli collision strengths (with energy shifts included for the first 9 energy levels) with Johnson & Kingston (1990). Plot a) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{0}) transition. Plot b) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P) 3p^{4}(^{1}D) transition, where the levelresolved BreitPauli collision strengths have been summed to give the termresolved collision strength. Plot c) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P) 3p^{4}(^{1}S) transition, where the levelresolved BreitPauli collision strengths have been summed to give the termresolved collision strength. Plot d) shows the 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) transition. In all plots the solid line shows the BreitPauli results and the dotdashed line shows the Results of Johnson & Kingston (1990). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 4: Comparison of selected BreitPauli effective collision strengths (with energy shifts included for the first 9 energy levels) with Johnson & Kingston (1990) and with Galavis et al. (1995,1998). Plot a) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{1}) transition. Plot b) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{0}) transition. Plot c) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{1}) 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{0}) transition. Plot d) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) transition. Plot e) shows the 3p^{4}(^{3}P_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) transition. Plot f) shows the 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}) transition. In all plots the solid line shows the BreitPauli RMatrix results, the dashed line shows the results of Galavis et al. (1995) and the dotdashed line shows the results of Johnson & Kingston (1990). In plot f) the doubledot dashed line shows the results of Galavis et al. (1998). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 5: Burgess Tully plot of effective collision strength vs. reduced temperature (X). Results are shown for transition 3p^{4}(^{1}D_{2}) 3p^{4}(^{1}S_{0}). In the reduced temperature scale zero corresponds to the value at threshold and one corresponds to the value at the infinite energy point. The solid line shows the results from our BreitPauli RMatrix calculation, the dashed line shows the results from the RMatrix calculation of Galavis et al. (1995) and the doubledot dashed line shows the results of Galavis et al. (1998) where more partial waves were included compared to their previous calculation. The solid square shows the limit point of Burgess et al. (1997). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 6: R_{1} line ratio as a function of electron temperature. The results are calculated at (cm^{3}), though the results are insensitive to electron density up to (cm^{3}). The solid line shows the results using the new RMatrix BreitPauli collision data. The dotdashed line show the results using the data of Johnson & Kingston (1990) and the dashed line shows the results using the data of Galavis et al. (1995). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 7: R_{2} line ratio as a function of electron density. The results are calculated for a range of electron temperatures, namely 5000, 8000, 10 000, 15 000, 20 000 and 30 000 K. The lowest line ratio is the 5000 K results, with the higher ratios showing the progressively higher temperature results. The solid line shows the results using the new RMatrix BreitPauli collision data. The dotdashed line show the results using the data of Johnson & Kingston (1990) and the dashed line shows the results using the data of Galavis et al. (1995). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Copyright ESO 2009