Cited by 102Gas Dynamics and Kinetic TheoryComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFluid dynamics and aerodynamics studies

Assessment of gas–surface interaction models for computation of rarefied hypersonic flow

Open access
Padilla, Jose F., Boyd, Iain D.·2009·Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer

Abstract

Among the few classes of computational approaches for examining rarefied gas dynamics, the most widely used technique for spatial scales relevant to suborbital spaceflight is the direct simulation Monte Carlo method.One area in which the direct simulation Monte Carlo method can be improved is the numerical modeling of the interactions between gas molecules and solid surfaces.Gas-surface interactions are not well understood for rarefied hypersonic conditions, although various models have been developed.The goal of this study is the assessment of gas-surface interaction models in use with the direct simulation Monte Carlo method.Assessment is made of the two most common gas-surface interaction models in use with direct simulation Monte Carlo: the Maxwell model and the Cercignani, Lampis, and Lord model.The assessment is performed by simulations of flat-plate wind-tunnel tests.Boundary-layer profiles are compared with existing wind-tunnel data.At about 90% accommodation, both models match the wind-tunnel profiles.Parametric studies demonstrate differences between the model predictions of scattering distributions, boundary-layer profiles, and surface-property distributions.The two models offer similar performance for computing flat-plate aerodynamics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2514/1.36375

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]19. Cercignani, C., "Boundary Value Problems in Linearized Kinetic Theory," SIAM-AMS Proceedings, Vol. 1, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1969, pp. 249-268.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Padilla, J. F., & Boyd, I. D.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer
Published
2009-01
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
96-105
ISSN
  • 0887-8722 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-6808
OpenAlex
W2023439171
Cited by
102
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NCC3989)
  • University of Virginia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Gas Dynamics and Kinetic Theory
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Computational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Fluid dynamics and aerodynamics studies
Keywords
hypersonic rarefied flow, rarefied gas dynamics, hypersonic flow simulation, model evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review