pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23303 · v1 · pith:34MIAB2Lnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

On the Applicability of the Gas-Kinetic Scheme with Kinetic Boundary Conditions for Near-Continuum Hypersonic Flows

Wenpei Long , Junzhe Cao , Yue Zhang , Kun Xu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 03:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords gas-kinetic schemehypersonic flowsnear-continuum regimekinetic boundary conditionsvelocity slipaerodynamic predictionDSMC validation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gas-kinetic scheme with built-in kinetic boundary conditions accurately models near-continuum hypersonic flows by capturing natural velocity slip and temperature jump.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that the gas-kinetic scheme (GKS), which uses the Chapman-Enskog expansion for near-equilibrium physics, can be extended into the slip and transitional regimes through its kinetic boundary conditions. These conditions allow velocity slip and temperature jump at walls without relying on approximate Maxwell-type models used in conventional CFD. Validation on a circular cylinder shows detailed agreement in surface quantities and distribution functions. Further tests on a 9-degree blunted cone, a 70-degree blunted cone with sting, and the Apollo 6 command module confirm that integrated aerodynamic predictions match experimental data and DSMC results more closely than standard Navier-Stokes solvers.

Core claim

By adopting the same kinetic boundary conditions as the unified gas-kinetic scheme, the GKS naturally incorporates non-equilibrium wall effects and delivers more accurate aerodynamic forces and heat transfer in near-continuum hypersonic regimes than conventional CFD equipped with Maxwell slip conditions.

What carries the argument

The natural kinetic slip boundary condition in GKS, which derives velocity slip and temperature jump directly from the kinetic distribution function at the wall.

If this is right

  • GKS can be applied to predict lift, drag, and moments on hypersonic vehicles at altitudes where continuum assumptions begin to fail.
  • Aerodynamic heating rates obtained from GKS should be closer to DSMC results than those from Navier-Stokes solvers with slip corrections.
  • The same boundary-condition treatment allows GKS to bridge the gap between continuum CFD and full kinetic methods without the full cost of UGKS.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method may lower the computational expense of simulating transitional flows on complex vehicle shapes compared with particle-based kinetic solvers.
  • Similar kinetic boundary conditions could be tested on other continuum solvers to isolate whether accuracy gains come from the boundary treatment or the interior scheme.
  • Extension to unsteady or three-dimensional cases with stronger non-equilibrium would test the current applicability limits.

Load-bearing premise

The Chapman-Enskog expansion inside the GKS stays accurate enough for the moderate non-equilibrium effects encountered in the tested near-continuum hypersonic cases.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of surface pressure, shear stress, or heat flux distributions on the blunted-cone or Apollo geometries against DSMC or wind-tunnel data that shows systematic deviation larger than the difference between GKS and Maxwell-slip CFD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23303 by Junzhe Cao, Kun Xu, Wenpei Long, Yue Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of equilibrium and CE expanded reduced distribution functions in the strongly rarefied cylinder wake. GKS in these regimes, τ in the CE expansion is limited. An effective relaxation time τeff is defined by τeff = { τ, τ ≤ Cτ,limit ∆t, Cτ,limit ∆t, τ > Cτ,limit ∆t, where Cτ,limit is a constant (a typical value in this work is Cτ,limit = 2000) and ∆t is the local time step of the local cell (e.g. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hypersonic flow at Kn∞ = 0.02 and Ma∞ = 5 passing over a circular cylinder by the GKS and UGKS. Distributions along the stagnation line: (a) pressure, (b) temperature, and (c) x-direction velocity U. Cp 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 GKS UGKS UGKWP (a) Ct 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 GKS UGKS UGKWP (b) Ch 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 GKS UGKS UGKWP (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Hypersonic flow at Kn∞ = 0.02 and Ma∞ = 5 passing over a circular cylinder by the GKS, UGKS, and UGKWP. Surface quantities distributions: (a) pressure coefficient, (b) shear stress coefficient, and (c) heat flux coefficient. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hypersonic flow at Kn∞ = 0.4 and Ma∞ = 5 passing over a circular cylinder by the GKS and UGKS. Distributions of (a) pressure, (b) temperature, and (c) x-direction velocity U. Cp 0 50 100 150 200 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 GKS UGKS UGKWP (a) Ch 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 GKS UGKS UGKWP (b) Ch 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 GKS UGKS UGKWP (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hypersonic flow at Kn∞ = 0.4 and Ma∞ = 5 passing over a circular cylinder by the GKS, UGKS, and UGKWP. Surface quantities distributions: (a) pressure coefficient, (b) shear stress coefficient, and (c) heat flux coefficient. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hypersonic flow at Kn∞ = 0.4 and Ma∞ = 5 past a circular cylinder (GKS). Comparison of reduced nonequilibrium and CE expansion distribution functions. 3.2. Apollo 6 command module Simulations of hypersonic flow around an Apollo 6 command module are conducted for nitrogen over a range of freestream conditions to represent three altitudes in the re-entry process, at H = 85, 100, and 120 km. All the initial a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mach number contours around the Apollo 6 command module at three altitudes, with streamlines on the symmetry (Z) plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Apollo 6 command module: integrated aerodynamic coefficients versus altitude H for the GKS, SUGKS, and DSMC. (a) Drag coefficient Cd, (b) lift coefficient Cl , and (c) pitching moment coefficient Cm. For integrated aerodynamic quantities versus altitude, the GKS is further compared with a conservative implicit simplified unified gas-kinetic scheme (SUGKS) [47], and with the DSMC data obtained from two diff… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hypersonic flow over a 70◦ blunted cone with sting at α = 30◦ , Ma∞ = 20.2, and Kn∞ = 0.013 (H ∼ 80 km) by the GKS. Contours on the symmetry plane: (a) x-direction velocity U, (b) density, and (c) temperature with streamlines. X Y Z U 1400 1260 1120 980 840 700 560 420 280 140 0 (a) U X Y Z Density 5.00E-03 3.16E-03 1.99E-03 1.26E-03 7.96E-04 5.03E-04 3.17E-04 2.01E-04 1.27E-04 8.00E-05 (b) ρ X Y Z T 1200 … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Hypersonic flow over a 70◦ blunted cone with sting at α = 30◦ , Ma∞ = 20.5, and Kn∞ = 5.4 × 10−4 (H ∼ 57 km) by the GKS. Contours on the symmetry plane: (a) x-direction velocity U, (b) density, and (c) temperature with streamlines. Figures 9 and 10 show x-direction velocity U, density, and temperature contours with stream￾lines on the symmetry plane at α = 30◦ for Kn∞ = 0.013 (H ∼ 80 km) and 5.4×10−4 (H ∼… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the time-averaged temperature by the UGKWP and the temperature by the GKS on the symmetry plane of the 70◦ blunted cone with sting at α = 0◦ . (a) Ma∞ = 20.2, Kn∞ = 0.013 (H ∼ 80 km); (b) Ma∞ = 20.5, Kn∞ = 5.4 × 10−4 (H ∼ 57 km) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Hypersonic flow over a 70◦ blunted cone with sting at Kn∞ = 0.013 (H ∼ 80 km) and Ma∞ = 20.2. Aerodynamic coefficients versus angle of attack: (a) axial force CA, (b) normal force CN , and (c) pitching moment coefficient Cm. Comparisons include experiment, GKS, UGKWP, DSMC, NS with slip wall [53]. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Hypersonic flow over a 70◦ blunted cone with sting at Kn∞ = 5.4×10−4 (H ∼ 57 km) and Ma∞ = 20.5. Aerodynamic coefficients versus angle of attack: (a) axial force CA, (b) normal force CN , and (c) pitching moment coefficient Cm. Comparisons include the experiment, the UGKWP, and the GKS. Figures 12 and 13 present the axial force, normal force, and pitching moment coefficients (CA, CN , Cm) versus angle of … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Hypersonic flow over 9 ◦ blunted cone at Kn∞ = 0.065 (H ∼ 80 km), Ma∞ = 10.15, and α = 25◦ by the GKS. Contours on the symmetry plane: (a) x-direction velocity U, (b) density, and (c) temperature with streamlines. X Y Z U 2200 1980 1760 1540 1320 1100 880 660 440 220 0 (a) U X Y Z Density 5.00E-05 3.15E-05 1.99E-05 1.26E-05 7.92E-06 5.00E-06 3.15E-06 1.99E-06 1.26E-06 7.92E-07 5.00E-07 (b) ρ X Y Z T 1500 … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Hypersonic flow over 9 ◦ blunted cone at Kn∞ = 0.65 (H ∼ 94 km), Ma∞ = 10.15, and α = 25◦ by the GKS. Contours on the symmetry plane: (a) x-direction velocity U, (b) density, and (c) temperature with streamlines. Figures 14 and 15 show the x-direction velocity, density, and temperature contours on the symmetry plane at α = 25◦ for both cases. From the streamlines, both cases show few recirculation 21 [PI… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of the time-averaged UGKWP temperature and the GKS temperature for the 9 ◦ blunted cone at Ma∞ = 10.15 and α = 0◦ . (a) Kn∞ = 0.065 (H ∼ 80 km); (b) Kn∞ = 0.65 (H ∼ 94 km) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Hypersonic flow over 9 ◦ blunted cone at Kn∞ = 0.065 (H ∼ 80 km), Ma∞ = 10.15. Aerodynamic coefficients versus angle of attack: (a) drag coefficient Cd, (b) lift coefficient Cl , and (c) pitching moment coefficient Cm. Comparisons include experiment [55], DSMC [56], NS with slip boundary, and the GKS. AoA(°) Cd 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 GKS UGKWP (a) AoA(°) Cl 0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 … view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Hypersonic flow over 9 ◦ blunted cone at Kn∞ = 0.65 (H ∼ 94 km), Ma∞ = 10.15. Aerodynamic coefficients versus angle of attack: (a) drag coefficient Cd, (b) lift coefficient Cl , and (c) pitching moment coefficient Cm. Comparisons include the UGKWP and the GKS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Rarefied gas effects are of critical importance for the aerodynamic performance of hypersonic vehicles operating at high altitudes. In these scenarios, conventional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solvers break down as the linear constitutive relations underlying the Navier-Stokes equations cease to be valid. Based on direct modeling, the unified gas-kinetic scheme (UGKS) and the unified gas-kinetic wave-particle (UGKWP) method successfully capture non-equilibrium physics across all Knudsen numbers, yet they incur substantially higher computational costs than continuum solvers. Within the same kinetic framework, the gas-kinetic scheme (GKS) employs the Chapman-Enskog expansion for near-equilibrium flow physics and adopts the same kinetic boundary conditions as UGKS and UGKWP. This formulation naturally permits velocity slip and temperature jump, thereby extending the applicability of GKS into the slip and transitional regimes. By utilizing this natural kinetic slip boundary condition, the GKS provides a more physically faithful representation of non-equilibrium wall interactions than conventional CFD solvers equipped with Maxwell-type slip conditions, ultimately yielding more accurate aerodynamic predictions. To determine the applicability of the GKS in near-continuum flow regimes, we first examine a simple circular cylinder geometry, comparing surface quantities and distribution functions in detail. Furthermore, we investigate a 9{\deg}blunted cone, a 70{\deg} blunted cone with a cylindrical sting, and the Apollo 6 command module. This analysis focuses on integrated aerodynamic predictions, which are validated against experimental data, Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) simulations, and other kinetic methods.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the gas-kinetic scheme (GKS) with its built-in kinetic boundary conditions for near-continuum hypersonic flows. It claims that these conditions naturally capture velocity slip and temperature jump, providing a more physically faithful wall treatment than Maxwell-type slip conditions in conventional Navier-Stokes CFD solvers and thereby producing more accurate surface quantities and integrated aerodynamic forces. Validation cases include a circular cylinder (with detailed surface and distribution-function comparisons), a 9° blunted cone, a 70° blunted cone with sting, and the Apollo 6 command module; results are compared to experiments, DSMC, and other kinetic methods.

Significance. If substantiated, the work would establish GKS as a computationally lighter alternative to UGKS/UGKWP for the slip and early transitional regimes in hypersonic aerodynamics, while offering a clearer physical basis for wall modeling than ad-hoc slip corrections in continuum codes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central comparative claim that the kinetic slip BC yields 'more accurate aerodynamic predictions' than conventional CFD with Maxwell-type slip conditions is unsupported by any direct head-to-head simulations on the same geometries; without NS+Maxwell runs, any observed agreement with experiment cannot be attributed specifically to the boundary condition rather than the GKS flux construction.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no quantitative error metrics (percentage errors, L2 norms), mesh-convergence data, or uncertainty estimates are supplied for surface pressure, heat flux, or integrated forces, so the accuracy statements relative to experiment and DSMC cannot be verified.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract (GKS formulation paragraph): the assertion that the Chapman-Enskog expansion remains adequate for the non-equilibrium effects in the tested hypersonic near-continuum cases is stated without supporting diagnostics (e.g., local Knudsen-number maps or comparison of higher-order moments), leaving the weakest assumption unexamined.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the notation '9{°}blunted cone' is a typesetting artifact and should be rendered consistently as 9°.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central comparative claim that the kinetic slip BC yields 'more accurate aerodynamic predictions' than conventional CFD with Maxwell-type slip conditions is unsupported by any direct head-to-head simulations on the same geometries; without NS+Maxwell runs, any observed agreement with experiment cannot be attributed specifically to the boundary condition rather than the GKS flux construction.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not contain direct head-to-head comparisons of GKS against Navier-Stokes solvers employing Maxwell slip conditions on identical geometries and meshes. The abstract statement is motivated by the physical consistency of the kinetic boundary conditions (identical to those in UGKS/UGKWP) versus the approximate Maxwell model, together with the observed agreement of GKS results with DSMC and experiment. Because the attribution cannot be rigorously demonstrated without the missing comparisons, we will revise the abstract to remove the direct comparative claim of superior accuracy and instead emphasize the physical basis of the boundary condition and the agreement with reference data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no quantitative error metrics (percentage errors, L2 norms), mesh-convergence data, or uncertainty estimates are supplied for surface pressure, heat flux, or integrated forces, so the accuracy statements relative to experiment and DSMC cannot be verified.

    Authors: The referee correctly observes that the manuscript presents only qualitative visual comparisons. In the revised version we will add quantitative error metrics (percentage errors and L2 norms) for surface pressure, heat flux, and integrated aerodynamic coefficients against the available experimental and DSMC data. A short discussion of mesh convergence for the cylinder and cone cases will also be included. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (GKS formulation paragraph): the assertion that the Chapman-Enskog expansion remains adequate for the non-equilibrium effects in the tested hypersonic near-continuum cases is stated without supporting diagnostics (e.g., local Knudsen-number maps or comparison of higher-order moments), leaving the weakest assumption unexamined.

    Authors: We accept that supporting diagnostics are needed to justify the Chapman-Enskog assumption. The revised manuscript will include local Knudsen-number distributions for all test cases to confirm that the flows remain within the near-continuum regime. If space allows, selected higher-order moment comparisons will be added for the cylinder case. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation relies on external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper applies the pre-existing GKS formulation (Chapman-Enskog expansion plus kinetic boundary conditions adopted from UGKS/UGKWP) to near-continuum cases and reports surface quantities and forces validated directly against independent experimental data, DSMC, and other kinetic methods. No parameter is fitted to the target aerodynamic quantities, no result is redefined in terms of itself, and no load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-citation or internal fit. The comparative claim about Maxwell slip is an assertion tested via external data rather than a self-referential derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach inherits the standard assumptions of the gas-kinetic scheme and its kinetic boundary conditions from earlier publications; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Chapman-Enskog expansion remains valid for near-continuum non-equilibrium effects
    Explicitly invoked when the abstract states that GKS employs the Chapman-Enskog expansion for near-equilibrium flow physics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5826 in / 1221 out tokens · 42640 ms · 2026-05-25T03:26:58.969238+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. S. Ivanov, S. F. Gimelshein, Computational hypersonic rarefied flows, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 30 (1) (1998) 469–505. doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.30.1.469

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.30.1.469 1998

  2. [2]

    I. D. Boyd, T. E. Schwartzentruber, Nonequilibrium Gas Dynamics and Molecular Simulation, Cambridge University Press, 2017. doi:10.1017/9781139683494

    work page doi:10.1017/9781139683494 2017

  3. [3]

    A. J. Lofthouse, I. D. Boyd, M. J. Wright, Effects of continuum breakdown on hypersonic aerothermodynamics, Physics of Fluids 19 (2) (2007) 027105. doi:10.1063/1.2710289

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2710289 2007

  4. [4]

    G. A. Bird, Molecular Gas Dynamics and the Direct Simulation of Gas Flows, Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 1994. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198561958.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/oso/9780198561958.001.0001 1994

  5. [5]

    Xu, Direct Modeling for Computational Fluid Dynamics, Advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics, World Scientific, 2015

    K. Xu, Direct Modeling for Computational Fluid Dynamics, Advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics, World Scientific, 2015. doi:10.1142/9324

    work page doi:10.1142/9324 2015

  6. [6]

    Xu, J.-C

    K. Xu, J.-C. Huang, A unified gas-kinetic scheme for continuum and rarefied flows, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (20) (2010) 7747–7764. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2010.06.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2010.06.032 2010

  7. [7]

    G. A. Bird, Direct simulation and the Boltzmann equation, Physics of Fluids 13 (11) (1970) 2676–2681. doi:10.1063/1.1692849

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1692849 1970

  8. [8]

    J. E. Broadwell, Study of rarefied shear flow by the discrete velocity method, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 19 (3) (1964) 401–414. doi:10.1017/S0022112064000817

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112064000817 1964

  9. [9]

    K. Xu, A gas-kinetic BGK scheme for the Navier–Stokes equations and its connection with artificial dissipation and Godunov method, Journal of Computational Physics 171 (1) (2001) 289–335. doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6790

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6790 2001

  10. [11]

    Y. Wei, W. Long, K. Xu, Adaptive unified gas-kinetic scheme for diatomic gases with rota- tional and vibrational nonequilibrium, Computer Physics Communications 305 (2024) 109324. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109324

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109324 2024

  11. [12]

    Y. Wei, J. Cao, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic scheme for reactive flow with multi-scale transport and chemical non-equilibrium, Journal of Computational Physics 546 (2026) 114514. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114514

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114514 2026

  12. [14]

    Y. Zhu, C. Zhong, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic scheme with multigrid convergence for rarefied flow study, Physics of Fluids 29 (9) (2017) 096102. doi:10.1063/1.4994020. 25

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4994020 2017

  13. [15]

    Y. Zhu, C. Zhong, K. Xu, An implicit unified gas-kinetic scheme for unsteady flow in all Knudsen regimes, Journal of Computational Physics 386 (2019) 190–217. doi:10.1016/j. jcp.2019.01.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2019

  14. [16]

    S. Chen, K. Xu, C. Lee, Q. Cai, A unified gas kinetic scheme with moving mesh and velocity space adaptation, Journal of Computational Physics 231 (20) (2012) 6643–6664. doi:10. 1016/j.jcp.2012.05.019

    work page 2012

  15. [17]

    T. Xiao, C. Liu, K. Xu, Q. Cai, A velocity-space adaptive unified gas kinetic scheme for continuum and rarefied flows, Journal of Computational Physics 415 (2020) 109535. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109535

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109535 2020

  16. [18]

    W. Long, Y. Wei, K. Xu, An implicit adaptive unified gas-kinetic scheme for steady-state solu- tions of nonequilibrium flows, Physics of Fluids 36 (2024) 106114. doi:10.1063/5.0232275

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0232275 2024

  17. [19]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Wei, W. Long, K. Xu, An efficiency and memory-saving programming paradigm for the unified gas-kinetic scheme, Computer Physics Communications 314 (2025) 109684. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2025.109684

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2025.109684 2025

  18. [20]

    Y. Zhu, C. Liu, C. Zhong, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle methods. II. multiscale simulation on unstructured mesh, Physics of Fluids 31 (6) (2019) 067105. doi:10.1063/1. 5097645

    work page doi:10.1063/1 2019

  19. [21]

    C. Liu, Y. Zhu, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle methods I: continuum and rarefied gas flow, Journal of Computational Physics 401 (2020) 108977. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019. 108977

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019 2020

  20. [22]

    Y. Chen, Y. Zhu, K. Xu, A three-dimensional unified gas-kinetic wave-particle solver for flow computation in all regimes, Physics of Fluids 32 (9) (2020) 096108. doi:10.1063/5.0021199

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0021199 2020

  21. [23]

    W. Long, Y. Wei, K. Xu, Nonequilibrium flow simulations using unified gas-kinetic wave- particle method, AIAA Journal 62 (4) (2024) 1411–1433. doi:10.2514/1.J063641

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j063641 2024

  22. [24]

    W. Li, C. Liu, Y. Zhu, J. Zhang, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle methods III: multiscale photon transport, Journal of Computational Physics 408 (2020) 109280. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109280

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109280 2020

  23. [25]

    C. Liu, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle methods IV: multi-species gas mix- ture and plasma transport, Advances in Aerodynamics 3 (1) (2021) 9. doi:10.1186/ s42774-021-00062-1

    work page 2021

  24. [26]

    Z. Pu, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle method for multiscale flow simulation of partially ionized plasma, Journal of Computational Physics 530 (2025) 113918. doi:10. 1016/j.jcp.2025.113918

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [27]

    Z. Pu, K. Xu, Electromagnetic flow control in hypersonic rarefied environment, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1033 (2026) A37. doi:10.1017/jfm.2026.11462. 26

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2026.11462 2026

  26. [28]

    X. Xu, Y. Chen, C. Liu, Z. Li, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle methods V: diatomic molecular flow, Journal of Computational Physics 442 (2021) 110496. doi:10.1016/j.jcp. 2021.110496

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp 2021

  27. [29]

    Y. Wei, Y. Zhu, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle methods VII: diatomic gas with rota- tional and vibrational nonequilibrium, Journal of Computational Physics 497 (2024) 112610. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112610

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112610 2024

  28. [30]

    X. Yang, C. Liu, X. Ji, W. Shyy, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle methods VI: disperse dilute gas-particle multiphase flow, Communications in Computational Physics 31 (3) (2022) 669–706. doi:10.4208/cicp.OA-2021-0153

    work page doi:10.4208/cicp.oa-2021-0153 2022

  29. [31]

    X. Yang, W. Shyy, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle method for gas-particle two- phase flow from dilute to dense solid particle limit, Physics of Fluids 34 (2) (2022) 023312. doi:10.1063/5.0081105

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0081105 2022

  30. [32]

    X. Yang, Y. Wei, W. Shyy, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle method for three- dimensional simulation of gas-particle fluidized bed, Chemical Engineering Journal 453 (2023) 139541. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2022.139541

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cej.2022.139541 2023

  31. [33]

    X. Yang, W. Shyy, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle method for polydisperse gas-solid particle multiphase flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 983 (2024) A37. doi:10.1017/jfm. 2024.80

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm 2024

  32. [34]

    C. Liu, W. Li, Y. Wang, P. Song, K. Xu, An implicit unified gas-kinetic wave-particle method for radiative transport process, Physics of Fluids 35 (11) (2023) 112013. doi:10.1063/5. 0174774

    work page doi:10.1063/5 2023

  33. [35]

    X. Yang, Y. Zhu, C. Liu, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle method for frequency- dependent radiation transport equation, Journal of Computational Physics 522 (2025) 113587. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113587

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113587 2025

  34. [36]

    H. Liu, X. Yang, C. Zhang, X. Ji, K. Xu, Unified gas-kinetic wave-particle method for multi- scale phonon transport, Physical Review E 112 (2025) 065304. doi:10.1103/hz9s-5qbm

    work page doi:10.1103/hz9s-5qbm 2025

  35. [37]

    X. Yang, K. Xu, Wave-particle based multiscale modeling and simulation of non-equilibrium turbulent flows (2025). arXiv:2503.07207, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.07207. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.07207

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.07207 2025

  36. [38]

    Y. Wei, J. Cao, X. Ji, K. Xu, Adaptive wave-particle decomposition in UGKWP method for high-speed flow simulations, Advances in Aerodynamics 5 (2023) 25. doi:10.1186/ s42774-023-00156-y

    work page 2023

  37. [39]

    J. Cao, Y. Wei, W. Long, C. Zhong, K. Xu, Adaptive criterion and modification of wave- particle decomposition in UGKWP method for high-speed flow simulation, Computers & Fluids 305 (2026) 106896. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2025.106896

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2025.106896 2026

  38. [40]

    J. C. Maxwell, On stresses in rarified gases arising from inequalities of temperature, Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 170 (1879) 231–256. doi:10.1098/ rstl.1879.0067. 27

    work page arXiv

  39. [41]

    Q. Li, S. Fu, K. Xu, Application of gas-kinetic scheme with kinetic boundary conditions in hypersonic flow, AIAA Journal 43 (10) (2005) 2170–2176. doi:10.2514/1.14130

    work page doi:10.2514/1.14130 2005

  40. [42]

    E. M. Shakhov, Generalization of the Krook kinetic relaxation equation, Fluid Dynamics 3 (5) (1968) 95–96. doi:10.1007/BF01029546

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01029546 1968

  41. [43]

    Zhang, X

    Y. Zhang, X. Ji, K. Xu, A high-order compact gas-kinetic scheme in a rotating coordinate frame and on sliding mesh, International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 37 (2) (2023) 105–128. doi:10.1080/10618562.2023.2178647

    work page doi:10.1080/10618562.2023.2178647 2023

  42. [44]

    X. Ji, W. Shyy, K. Xu, A gradient compression-based compact high-order gas-kinetic scheme on 3D hybrid unstructured meshes, International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 35 (7) (2021) 485–509. doi:10.1080/10618562.2021.1991329

    work page doi:10.1080/10618562.2021.1991329 2021

  43. [45]

    C. J. Greenshields, J. M. Reese, Rarefied hypersonic flow simulations using the Navier–Stokes equations with non-equilibrium boundary conditions, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 52 (2012) 80–87. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2011.08.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2011.08.001 2012

  44. [46]

    J. N. Moss, C. E. Glass, F. A. Greene, DSMC simulations of apollo capsule aerodynamics for hypersonic rarefied conditions, in: Proceedings of the 9th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, no. AIAA Paper 2006-3577, 2006. doi:10.2514/6.2006-3577

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2006-3577 2006

  45. [47]

    Zhang, S

    R. Zhang, S. Liu, J. Chen, C. Zhuo, C. Zhong, A conservative implicit scheme for three- dimensional steady flows of diatomic gases in all flow regimes using unstructured meshes in the physical and velocity spaces, Physics of Fluids 36 (1) (2024) 016114. doi:10.1063/5.0186520

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0186520 2024

  46. [48]

    Allègre, D

    J. Allègre, D. Bisch, J.-C. Lengrand, Experimental rarefied aerodynamic forces at hypersonic conditions over 70-degree blunted cone, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 34 (6) (1997) 719–

    work page 1997

  47. [49]

    R. C. Palharini, C. White, T. J. Scanlon, R. E. Brown, M. K. Borg, J. M. Reese, Benchmark numerical simulations of rarefied non-reacting gas flows using an open-source DSMC code, Computers & Fluids 120 (2015) 140–157. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.07.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.07.021 2015

  48. [50]

    J. N. Moss, V. K. Dogra, J. M. Price, D. B. Hash, Comparison of DSMC and experimental results for hypersonic external flows, in: 30th Thermophysics Conference, 1995, AIAA Paper 95-2028. doi:10.2514/6.1995-2028

    work page doi:10.2514/6.1995-2028 1995

  49. [51]

    Schouler, Y

    M. Schouler, Y. Prévereaud, L. Mieussens, Survey of flight and numerical data of hypersonic rarefied flows encountered in Earth orbit and atmospheric reentry, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 118 (2020) 100638. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2020.100638

    work page doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2020.100638 2020

  50. [52]

    J. Cao, S. Liu, C. Zhong, C. Zhuo, K. Xu, Multiple solutions of nonlinear coupled constitu- tive relation model and its rectification in non-equilibrium flow computation, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 174 (2024) 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2024.08.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2024.08.017 2024

  51. [53]

    X. Jin, C. Liu, X. Wang, X. Cheng, Q. Wang, B. Wang, Computational and experimental study of rarefied aerodynamic forces of blunted cone, AIAA Journal 64 (1) (2026) 468–477. doi:10.2514/1.J065362. 28

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j065362 2026

  52. [54]

    Palacios, T

    F. Palacios, T. D. Economon, A. C. Aranake, S. R. Copeland, A. K. Lonkar, T. W. Lukaczyk, D. E. Manosalvas, K. R. Naik, S. A. Padrón, B. D. Tracey, A. Variyar, J. J. Alonso, Stanford university unstructured (SU2): Analysis and design technology for turbulent flows, in: 52nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, no. AIAA 2014-0243, 2014. doi:10.2514/6.2014-0243

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2014-0243 2014

  53. [55]

    D. E. Boylan, J. L. Potter, Aerodynamics of typical lifting bodies under conditions simulating very high altitudes, AIAA Journal 5 (2) (1967) 226–232. doi:10.2514/3.3946

    work page doi:10.2514/3.3946 1967

  54. [56]

    J. F. Padilla, I. D. Boyd, Assessment of rarefied hypersonic aerodynamics modeling and windtunnel data, in: 9th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, no. AIAA 2006-3390, 2006. doi:10.2514/6.2006-3390. 29

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2006-3390 2006