4.7 Article

Particle-based fluid dynamics: Comparison of different Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook models and the direct simulation Monte Carlo method for hypersonic flows

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.5042016

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [93159129]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (BGK) model and its extensions (ellipsoidal statistical BGK, Shakhov BGK, and unified BGK) are used in particle-based fluid dynamics and compared with the Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method. To this end, different methods are investigated that allow efficient sampling of the Shakhov and the unified target distribution functions. As a consequence, particle simulations based on the Shakhov BGK and unified BGK models are possible in an efficient way. Furthermore, different energy conservation schemes are tested for the BGK models. It is shown that the choice of the energy conservation scheme has a major impact on the quality of the results for each model. The models are verified with a Couette flow problem at different Knudsen numbers and wall velocities. Furthermore, the models are compared with the DSMC results of a hypersonic flow around a 70 degrees blunted cone. It is shown that the unified BGK model is able to reproduce rarefied gas phenomena. Furthermore, it is shown that the difference in the reproduction of the shock structure is not significant between the ellipsoidal statistical BGK and Shakhov BGK models for the flow around a 70 degrees blunted cone and significantly depends on the energy conservation method. The choice of the energy conservation method is especially crucial for the Shakhov model whereas the ellipsoidal statistical BGK model is much more robust concerning the energy conservation scheme. Additionally, a computational time study is performed to show the efficiency of BGK-based simulations for low Knudsen number flows compared with DSMC. Published by AIP Publishing.

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