4.7 Article

Performance evaluation of Maxwell and Cercignani-Lampis gas-wall interaction models in the modeling of thermally driven rarefied gas transport

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 88, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.013009

关键词

-

资金

  1. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology [SA-C0040/UK-C0016]
  2. Hong Kong Research Grants Council under Competitive Earmarked Research Grant [621408]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Asystematic study on the performance of two empirical gas-wall interaction models, the Maxwell model and the Cercignani-Lampis (CL) model, in the entire Knudsen range is conducted. The models are evaluated by examining the accuracy of key macroscopic quantities such as temperature, density, and pressure, in three benchmark thermal problems, namely the Fourier thermal problem, the Knudsen force problem, and the thermal transpiration problem. The reference solutions are obtained from a validated hybrid DSMC-MD algorithm developed in-house. It has been found that while both models predict temperature and density reasonably well in the Fourier thermal problem, the pressure profile obtained from Maxwell model exhibits a trend that opposes that from the reference solution. As a consequence, the Maxwell model is unable to predict the orientation change of the Knudsen force acting on a cold cylinder embedded in a hot cylindrical enclosure at a certain Knudsen number. In the simulation of the thermal transpiration coefficient, although all three models overestimate the coefficient, the coefficient obtained from CL model is the closest to the reference solution. The Maxwell model performs the worst. The cause of the overestimated coefficient is investigated and its link to the overly constrained correlation between the tangential momentum accommodation coefficient and the tangential energy accommodation coefficient inherent in the models is pointed out. Directions for further improvement of models are suggested.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据