Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

A general synthetic iterative solver for axisymmetric rarefied gas and electrostatic charged-particle flows

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A solver that alternates kinetic and macroscopic updates reaches axisymmetric rarefied gas and charged-particle steady states in a fraction of the iterations.

desk verdict A worthwhile engineering extension of GSIS to axisymmetric and charged-particle flows; sounds right, but the missing grid-convergence study and the asserted consistency proof keep it from being more than conditionally solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21277 v1 pith:IH4MJJNP submitted 2026-07-23 physics.flu-dyn physics.comp-ph

Yifan Wen , Lei Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.comp-ph
keywords rarefiedgasdynamicsgeneralsyntheticiterativeschemeaxisymmetrickineticequationdiscretevelocitymethodcharged-particletransportelectrostaticfieldKnudsennumberfinite-volume
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that the general synthetic iterative scheme, previously confined to Cartesian neutral-gas settings, can be built for axisymmetric geometries and for charged particles moving through prescribed electrostatic fields. The new solver works on a two-dimensional meridian plane while keeping a full three-dimensional molecular velocity space, so it retains the circumferential-velocity effects that matter in cylindrical flows. It alternates kinetic iterations with fast macroscopic synthetic iterations: the kinetic solver feeds nonequilibrium stress and heat flux into the macroscopic equations, and the corrected macroscopic state is fed back into the distribution function. On four benchmark flows the converged results match reference kinetic solutions, while iteration counts drop from thousands to dozens in near-continuum regimes, cutting computational cost accordingly. If the claim holds, practical simulations of axisymmetric rarefied and charged-particle flows, such as nozzles, thrusters, and beam devices, become far more affordable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the GSIS coupling itself: the kinetic solver supplies nonequilibrium stress and heat flux, which are converted into high-order corrective terms by subtracting their Navier–Stokes–Fourier estimates; these terms are frozen while the macroscopic conservative equations, with consistent axisymmetric geometric and electrostatic source terms, are iterated; then the equilibrium part of the distribution function is refreshed with the corrected macroscopic state. Around this core, the method stacks a finite-volume discrete velocity discretization, a trigonometric upwind conservative scheme for the cylindrical velocity-space angular transport, and an analytical equilibrium

What would settle it

On a refined sequence of physical and velocity grids for the Kn=0.01 charged-particle sphere or the Pin=1000 Pa nozzle, run AxiGSIS and the conventional iterative scheme to the same residual tolerance; if the converged surface pressure, heat flux, or centerline profiles diverge by more than discretization error between schemes, the consistency claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the general synthetic iterative idea extends to axisymmetric geometries and to charged-particle transport under prescribed electrostatic fields. The resulting solver, AxiGSIS, solves the kinetic Shakhov equation on a 2D meridian plane with a full 3D velocity space; every few kinetic steps it extracts nonequilibrium stress and heat flux, subtracts Navier–Stokes–Fourier values to define high-order corrections, and iterates a macroscopic synthetic system until those corrections are the only nonequilibrium input. The corrected macroscopic state is then fed back to the distribution function. For four benchmark flows—Taylor–Couette flow, neutral nozzle expansion,

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that after three kinetic prediction steps, freezing the high-order nonequilibrium corrections and iterating the synthetic macroscopic equations, including the new axisymmetric geometric and electrostatic source terms, still converges to the same steady state as the underlying kinetic equation; this consistency is asserted from prior Cartesian development rather than proved for these new terms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AxiGSIS reproduces reference kinetic solutions for all four benchmark flows, including the tangential velocity profile in Taylor–Couette flow and centerline profiles in the nozzle and sphere cases.
  • Near the continuum limit the acceleration is large: for charged-particle sphere flow at Kn=0.01, iterations fall from 3060 to 28 and core-hours from 328 to 10.8; for the charged nozzle at Pin=1000 Pa, iterations fall from 5671 to 17 and core-hours from 752 to 6.
  • At high Knudsen number, exemplified by Kn=1 for the sphere case, the acceleration is small because conventional kinetic iteration is already efficient.
  • For the neutral axisymmetric nozzle flow, AxiGSIS matches a full 3D GSIS solution while using roughly 3% of the physical cells and about a twentieth of the core-hours.
  • Charged-particle surface pressure and heat flux are reduced by a repulsive electrostatic field, and AxiGSIS captures this response in agreement with the conventional kinetic solver.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: If the consistency claim survives, the same machinery should extend to self-consistent Poisson coupling, where particle density updates the potential; that would position AxiGSIS as a candidate for steady-state plasma sheath and thruster simulations, though the paper does not demonstrate it.
  • Inference: A natural stress test is a systematic grid-convergence study at small Knudsen number with strong electrostatic forcing, comparing AxiGSIS and the conventional kinetic scheme on successively refined physical and velocity meshes; the paper compares solutions on a single grid but reports no mesh-convergence study.
  • Inference: Because axisymmetric reduction removes one physical dimension while keeping the full velocity space, the speedup over a 3D solver should grow roughly with the number of azimuthal cells needed in a full 3D simulation; the neutral-nozzle numbers suggest an order-of-magnitude or more for devices with near-circular symmetry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AxiGSIS, an axisymmetric finite-volume discrete velocity solver for steady rarefied gas flows and charged-particle transport under prescribed electrostatic fields. The physical space is reduced to the two-dimensional meridian plane while the molecular velocity space remains three-dimensional. The solver follows the GSIS paradigm: three conventional iterative kinetic steps produce a predicted VDF f^{k+1/2}; high-order stress and heat-flux corrections are frozen from this prediction; a macroscopic synthetic system with axisymmetric geometric and electrostatic source terms is then iterated; and the VDF is corrected by replacing only its Maxwellian part via Eq. (51). The scheme is validated on Taylor–Couette flow, neutral nozzle expansion, charged-particle flow past an electrostatic sphere, and charged-particle nozzle flow, with reported savings in iteration counts and core-hours relative to CIS and to a 3D GSIS solver.

Significance. If the central consistency claim holds, the contribution is valuable: it extends GSIS to axisymmetric geometries and to charged-particle kinetic transport with imposed electrostatic fields, a combination not previously available in this framework. The paper contains a genuinely useful algorithmic construction: detailed finite-volume discretizations, the T-UCE treatment of the axisymmetric geometric term, velocity-space integration compensation, a consistent half-range boundary treatment, and an MPI implementation. The Taylor–Couette comparison with the external reference of Tibbs et al. is a genuine independent validation, and the documented speedups in near-continuum regimes are substantial. The main caveat is that the load-bearing consistency statement in §3.2 is asserted rather than proved, and the numerical validation does not include a grid-convergence or residual-based verification that would rule out a converged solution different from the kinetic steady state.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, p.15, Eq. (51)] The central claim that AxiGSIS converges to the solution of the axisymmetric kinetic equation (3) is not established. After three CIS prediction steps, the HoTs are frozen from f^{k+1/2}=f^{k,3}; the synthetic equations are solved; and the VDF is corrected by replacing only the Maxwellian part, Eq. (51). A fixed point of this outer iteration does not by itself imply that the kinetic residual R_{i,α} in Eq. (32) vanishes, nor that the frozen HoTs equal Π(f^{k+1})−Π_NSF(W^{k+1}) and the analogous heat-flux relation. This gap is larger in the present setting because the axisymmetric geometric term T_geo (Eq. 28) and the electrostatic source terms (Eq. 40) must be reproduced exactly by the synthetic system. Please provide either a proof of consistency specific to these terms or a numerical verification: for example, report the kinetic residual norm at the converged AxiGSIS state and demonstr
  2. [§4.2–4.4, Figs. 3, 5, 7] The validation lacks grid-convergence studies and quantitative error metrics. In the neutral nozzle case, AxiGSIS is compared with a 3D GSIS solver from the same group (Ref. [41]); in the charged-particle cases, AxiGSIS is compared only with CIS on the same mesh and velocity grid. Agreement between two solvers that share the same geometric and electrostatic discretizations cannot fully separate discretization bias from true convergence to the kinetic equation. Please add at least one systematic refinement study — in both physical space and velocity space — for, say, Taylor–Couette flow and one charged-particle case, and report quantitative errors (e.g., L1 or L2 differences against a fine-grid reference) rather than only line/symbol agreement.
  3. [§4.3, Table 2] The charged-particle validation is entirely against the same CIS implementation and uses only prescribed electrostatic fields. This is acceptable for a solver demonstration, but it makes the electrostatic acceleration terms the least independently tested part of the scheme. A comparison against an independent reference (a different kinetic solver, or a manufactured solution with a known analytic force field) would significantly strengthen the claim that the new velocity-space acceleration discretization and synthetic source terms are correct.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3] The table formatting is corrupted: the columns 'core-hours' and 'Iter' are not separated, so entries such as '617' and '7525671' cannot be parsed. Please reformat the table with clear column separators.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.6)] The under-relaxation factor η_φ is introduced but its value is never specified. State the value used in the charged-particle cases.
  3. [§2.1] The notation E_θ in Eq. (15) is used before the statement that E_θ=0 for the considered axisymmetric fields; define the azimuthal component consistently in the coordinate system introduction to avoid confusion.
  4. [Fig. 7] Contour comparisons between CIS and AxiGSIS are shown as filled contours and black contour lines; at the reproduced scale these are difficult to distinguish. Consider using overlaid line plots with quantitative differences for the contour-level comparisons.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; AxiGSIS's synthetic equations are a splitting of the kinetic moment equations, and benchmarks include external data. One minor self-cited 3D-GSIS reference is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed predictions are numerical steady states, not constants, and no parameter is fitted to the benchmark outputs. The GSIS consistency argument reduces to an algebraic identity: Eq. (35) defines the HoT corrections as the difference between the kinetic stress/heat flux and their NSF approximations, so Eq. (37), with R_HoT from Eq. (42), is by construction the original moment equations (12)-(14) once HoT+NSF equals the kinetic moments. This is a numerical splitting of a fixed-point equation, not a hidden reuse of the target solution. The main gap is that the paper asserts "At convergence, Δf→0 and the HoT-corrected synthetic equations are consistent with the original kinetic moment equations" (p. 15) without proving that the GSIS fixed point with Eq. (51)'s equilibrium-only correction and the frozen-after-three-steps HoTs has zero kinetic residual for the axisymmetric/electrostatic terms; that is an omitted convergence/consistency proof and a correctness risk, not a circularity. Validation is mixed but not circular: Taylor-Couette uses external data of Tibbs et al. [40]; the neutral-nozzle comparison is against 3D GSIS by Zhang et al. [41], a same-group code, but it is a dimensional-reduction consistency check rather than a fitted target; the charged-particle cases compare against the paper's own CIS baseline, which is the appropriate acceleration-scheme consistency test. No ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation beyond the normal use of the established GSIS framework [32-34], and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. Hence the derivation chain is self-contained modulo the unproven fixed-point consistency assertion.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on the Shakhov kinetic model, the T-UCE axisymmetric discretization, the GSIS synthetic-equation consistency argument, and the prescribed-field assumption. No new physical entities are introduced and no physical constants are fitted; only numerical hyperparameters are hand-chosen.

free parameters (3)
  • VDF correction relaxation coefficient η_f = 0.2
    Eq. (51): fixed at 0.2 across all cases; a hand-chosen numerical parameter affecting convergence rate, not the final solution.
  • Synthetic correction interval = 3 CIS iterations
    Section 3.2: synthetic equations are applied every three CIS iterations to mitigate instability; the reported efficiency depends on this hand-chosen schedule.
  • Potential solver under-relaxation factor η_φ = not reported
    Appendix A, Eq. (A.6): under-relaxation factor for the Jacobi potential solver; value is not given, which is a minor reproducibility gap for charged-particle cases.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Shakhov kinetic model (Eq. 4) adequately represents the Boltzmann collision operator for the flows considered.
    All simulations solve the Shakhov BGK-type model rather than the full Boltzmann equation. Taylor-Couette validation supports this for one case, but the nozzle and charged-particle results rely on model fidelity.
  • domain assumption The axisymmetric 2D+3V formulation with the T-UCE geometric discretization preserves the physics of full 3D axisymmetric flows.
    Section 3.1.2 and Ref. [13]: if the geometric source term or its discretization is inconsistent, the reduced solver will not match 3D solutions.
  • domain assumption GSIS convergence and consistency properties carry over from Cartesian to axisymmetric flows with geometric and electrostatic source terms.
    Section 3.2 asserts consistency at convergence by analogy to Refs. [32,33]; no proof is given for the new axisymmetric terms, and no grid-convergence study is presented.
  • domain assumption The electrostatic field is prescribed and not coupled to the particle density.
    Eqs. (6)–(7) and Section 2.1: the particle density from the VDF is not used to update the potential, so all charged-particle results exclude space-charge effects.
  • domain assumption Velocity-space integration compensation (Appendix B) removes quadrature error sufficiently for the GSIS correction to be robust.
    The compensation subtracts and re-adds analytical Maxwellian moments; the paper assumes the remaining non-equilibrium quadrature error does not bias the steady state.
  • standard math Standard finite-volume ingredients converge to the second-order explicit residual solution.
    Rusanov flux, Venkatakrishnan limiter, first-order implicit transport, and the point-implicit macroscopic update are standard practice; no mesh-convergence proof is included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A general synthetic iterative solver for axisymmetric rarefied gas and electrostatic charged-particle flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IH4MJJNP

@misc{pith2026260721277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A general synthetic iterative solver for axisymmetric rarefied gas and electrostatic charged-particle flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IH4MJJNP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21277}
}
read the original abstract

An axisymmetric general synthetic iterative scheme (AxiGSIS) is proposed to simulate rarefied gas flows and charged particle transport under prescribed electrostatic fields. This solver adopts a finite-volume discrete velocity method defined over the two-dimensional axisymmetric meridian plane paired with a three dimensional molecular velocity space. Under the GSIS framework, the kinetic solver computes nonequilibrium stress and heat flux, which are subsequently imported as corrective source terms into the macroscopic synthetic system. Fast iterative updates of low order flow primitive variables are performed on this macroscopic system, whose corrected flow fields are then fed back to the kinetic solver. This bidirectional coupling enables rapid propagation of macroscopic information and substantially accelerates steady state convergence, particularly in near continuum flow regimes. Four benchmark flows are examined: the Taylor Couette flow, neutral nozzle expansion flow, charged particle flow past an electrostatic sphere, and electrostatically accelerated charged-particle nozzle flow. Results show that AxiGSIS reproduces the reference kinetic solutions and accurately captures axisymmetric flow physics and charged-particle responses to prescribed electrostatic fields. Utilizing fewer spatial cells and iteration steps, AxiGSIS substantially cuts computational overhead relative to conventional kinetic iterations, particularly for low and moderate Knudsen number flows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Computational setup, mesh, and validation results for the Taylor–Couette flow. (a) Schematic of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Computational mesh and contour results of AxiGSIS for the neutral nozzle flow. (a) Computational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the centerline density, streamwise velocity, and temperature obtained by AxiGSIS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Charged-particle flow past an electrostatic sphere. (a,b) Computational setup, mesh, and electro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Charged-particle flow past an electrostatic sphere. (a,b) Streamwise velocity and temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Computational setup, mesh, and electrostatic potential distribution for the charged-particle nozzle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a,b) Contours of streamwise velocity and temperature for the charged-particle nozzle flow under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references

  1. [41]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Yuan, L. Luo, L. Wu, An efficient treatment of heat-flux boundary conditions in GSIS for rarefied gas flows, Computers & Fluids 315 (2026) 107113

    2026

  2. [1]

    Kaganovich, Y

    I. Kaganovich, Y. Raitses, D. Sydorenko, A. Smolyakov, Kinetic effects in a Hall thruster discharge, Physics of Plasmas 14 (5) (2007)

    2007

  3. [2]

    Coche, L

    P. Coche, L. Garrigues, A two-dimensional (azimuthal-axial) particle-in-cell model of a Hall thruster, Physics of Plasmas 21 (2) (2014)

    2014

  4. [3]

    Davidson, A

    A. Davidson, A. Tableman, W. An, F. S. Tsung, W. Lu, J. Vieira, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, W. B. Mori, Implementation of a hybrid particle code with a PIC description in r–z and a gridless description inϕinto OSIRIS, Journal of Computational Physics 281 (2015) 1063–1077. 31

    2015

  5. [4]

    D. L. Bruhwiler, R. E. Giacone, J. R. Cary, J. P. Verboncoeur, P. Mardahl, E. Esarey, W. Leemans, B. Shadwick, Particle-in-cell simulations of plasma accelerators and electron-neutral collisions, Physical Review Special Topics-Accelerators and Beams 4 (10) (2001) 101302

    2001

  6. [5]

    Pointon, W

    T. Pointon, W. Stygar, R. Spielman, H. Ives, K. Struve, Particle-in-cell simulations of electron flow in the post-hole convolute of the z accelerator, Physics of Plasmas 8 (10) (2001) 4534–4544

    2001

  7. [6]

    Arber, Hybrid simulation of the nonlinear evolution of a collisionless, large Larmor radius Z pinch, Physical Review Letters 77 (9) (1996) 1766

    T. Arber, Hybrid simulation of the nonlinear evolution of a collisionless, large Larmor radius Z pinch, Physical Review Letters 77 (9) (1996) 1766

    1996

  8. [7]

    A.Schmidt, V.Tang, D.Welch, FullykineticsimulationsofdenseplasmafocusZ-pinchdevices, Physical Review Letters 109 (20) (2012) 205003

    2012

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    G. A. Bird, Molecular gas dynamics and the direct simulation of gas flows, Oxford University Press, 1994

    1994

  2. [9]

    C. K. Birdsall, A. B. Langdon, A. Langdon, Plasma physics via computer simulation, CRC Press, 2018

    2018

  3. [10]

    J. P. Verboncoeur, Particle simulation of plasmas: review and advances, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 47 (5A) (2005) A231–A260

    2005

  4. [11]

    Tskhakaya, K

    D. Tskhakaya, K. Matyash, R. Schneider, F. Taccogna, The particle-in-cell method, Contributions to Plasma Physics 47 (8-9) (2007) 563–594

    2007

  5. [12]

    V. V. Aristov, Direct Methods for Solving the Boltzmann Equation and Study of Nonequilibrium Flows, Springer, Dordrecht, 2001

    2001

  6. [13]

    L. Mieussens, Discrete-velocity models and numerical schemes for the Boltzmann-BGK equation in plane and axisymmetric geometries, Journal of Computational Physics 162 (2) (2000) 429–466

    2000

  7. [14]

    Vogman, U

    G. Vogman, U. Shumlak, P. Colella, Conservative fourth-order finite-volume Vlasov-Poisson solver for axisymmetric plasmas in cylindrical (r,v r,v θ) phase space coordinates, Journal of Computational Physics 373 (2018) 877–899

    2018

  8. [15]

    Y. Sone, K. Aoki, Steady gas flows past bodies at small Knudsen numbers—Boltzmann and hydrody- namic systems, Transport Theory and Statistical Physics 16 (2–3) (1987) 189–199

    1987

  9. [16]

    Takata, Y

    S. Takata, Y. Sone, K. Aoki, Numerical analysis of a uniform flow of a rarefied gas past a sphere on the basis of the Boltzmann equation for hard-sphere molecules, Physics of Fluids A 5 (3) (1993) 716–737

    1993

  10. [17]

    K. Aoki, H. Yoshida, T. Nakanishi, A. L. Garcia, Inverted velocity profile in the cylindrical Couette flow of a rarefied gas, Physical Review E 68 (2003) 016302

    2003

  11. [18]

    F. M. Sharipov, G. M. Kremer, Linear Couette flow between two rotating cylinders, European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids 15 (1996) 493–505

    1996

  12. [19]

    F. M. Sharipov, G. M. Kremer, Non-isothermal Couette flow of a rarefied gas between two rotating cylinders, European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids 18 (1) (1999) 121–130

    1999

  13. [20]

    S. Li, Q. Li, S. Fu, K. Xu, A unified gas-kinetic scheme for axisymmetric flow in all Knudsen number regimes, Journal of Computational Physics 366 (2018) 144–169

    2018

  14. [21]

    Cheng, G

    C.-Z. Cheng, G. Knorr, The integration of the Vlasov equation in configuration space, Journal of Computational Physics 22 (3) (1976) 330–351

    1976

  15. [22]

    Sonnendrücker, J

    E. Sonnendrücker, J. Roche, P. Bertrand, A. Ghizzo, The semi-Lagrangian method for the numerical resolution of the Vlasov equation, Journal of Computational Physics 149 (2) (1999) 201–220

    1999

  16. [23]

    Filbet, E

    F. Filbet, E. Sonnendrücker, P. Bertrand, Conservative numerical schemes for the Vlasov equation, Journal of Computational Physics 172 (1) (2001) 166–187

    2001

  17. [24]

    Valentini, P

    F. Valentini, P. Veltri, A. Mangeney, A numerical scheme for the integration of the Vlasov-Poisson system of equations, in the magnetized case, Journal of Computational Physics 210 (2) (2005) 730–751

    2005

  18. [25]

    Y. Wang, J. Zhang, G. Ni, A gas-kinetic scheme for collisional Vlasov-Poisson equations in cylindrical coordinates, Communications in Computational Physics 32 (3) (2022) 779–809

    2022

  19. [26]

    A. Ni, Y. Wang, G. Ni, Y. Chen, A Fourier transformation based UGKS for Vlasov-Poisson equations in cylindrical coordinates (r,θ), Computers & Fluids 245 (2022) 105593. 32

    2022

  20. [27]

    Filbet, J.-L

    F. Filbet, J.-L. Lemaire, E. Sonnendrücker, Direct axisymmetric Vlasov simulations of space charge dominated beams, in: International Conference on Computational Science, Springer, 2002, pp. 305–314

    2002

  21. [28]

    Shoucri, H

    M. Shoucri, H. Gerhauser, K.-H. Finken, Study of the generation of a charge separation and elec- tric field at a plasma edge using Eulerian Vlasov codes in cylindrical geometry, Computer Physics Communications 164 (1-3) (2004) 138–149

    2004

  22. [29]

    P. Wang, M. T. Ho, L. Wu, Z. Guo, Y. Zhang, A comparative study of discrete velocity methods for low-speed rarefied gas flows, Computers & Fluids 161 (2018) 33–46

    2018

  23. [30]

    Xu, J.-C

    K. Xu, J.-C. Huang, A unified gas-kinetic scheme for continuum and rarefied flows, Journal of Compu- tational Physics 229 (20) (2010) 7747–7764

    2010

  24. [31]

    Z. Guo, K. Xu, R. Wang, Discrete unified gas kinetic scheme for all Knudsen number flows: Low-speed isothermal case, Physical Review E 88 (3) (2013)

    2013

  25. [32]

    W. Su, L. H. Zhu, P. Wang, Y. H. Zhang, L. Wu, Can we find steady-state solutions to multiscale rarefied gas flows within dozens of iterations?, Journal of Computational Physics 407 (2020) 109245

    2020

  26. [33]

    W. Su, L. H. Zhu, L. Wu, Fast convergence and asymptotic preserving of the general synthetic iterative scheme, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 42 (2020) B1517–B1540

    2020

  27. [34]

    Y. B. Zhang, J. N. Zeng, R. F. Yuan, W. Liu, L. Wu, Efficient parallel solver for rarefied gas flow using GSIS, Computers & Fluids 281 (2024) 106374

    2024

  28. [35]

    Shakhov, Approximate kinetic equations in rarefied gas theory, Fluid Dynamics 3 (1) (1968) 112–115

    E. Shakhov, Approximate kinetic equations in rarefied gas theory, Fluid Dynamics 3 (1) (1968) 112–115

    1968

  29. [36]

    Chapman, T

    S. Chapman, T. G. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases, Cambridge University Press, 1970

    1970

  30. [37]

    Venkatakrishnan, On the accuracy of limiters and convergence to steady state solutions, in: 31st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 1993, p

    V. Venkatakrishnan, On the accuracy of limiters and convergence to steady state solutions, in: 31st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 1993, p. 880

    1993

  31. [38]

    L. Y. Luo, L. Wu, Multiscale simulation of rarefied gas dynamics via direct intermittent GSIS-DSMC coupling, Advances in Aerodynamics 6 (2024) 22

    2024

  32. [39]

    Rusanov, The calculation of the interaction of non-stationary shock waves and obstacles, USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 1 (2) (1962) 304–320

    V. Rusanov, The calculation of the interaction of non-stationary shock waves and obstacles, USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 1 (2) (1962) 304–320

    1962

  33. [40]

    K. W. Tibbs, F. Baras, A. L. Garcia, Anomalous flow profile due to the curvature effect on slip length, Physical Review E 56 (2) (1997) 2282

    1997

  34. [42]

    X. Jin, P. Su, Z. Chen, X. Cheng, Q. Wang, B. Wang, Numerical and experimental investigation of rarefied hypersonic flow in a nozzle, Physics of Fluids 36 (2024) 116131

    2024

  35. [43]

    R. Yuan, L. Wu, Adjoint shape optimization from the continuum to free-molecular gas flows, Journal of Computational Physics 537 (2025) 114102

    2025

  36. [44]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Yuan, L. Wu, A fast-converging and asymptotic-preserving adjoint shape optimization of rarefied gas flows, Journal of Computational Physics (2026) 114960

    2026

  37. [45]

    Chen, Quadrature with equilibrium offset and its application on adaptive velocity grid, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol

    S. Chen, Quadrature with equilibrium offset and its application on adaptive velocity grid, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2132, AIP Publishing LLC, 2019, p. 060003. 33

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.