Premium
Methods for implementing the stream boundary condition in DSMC computations
Author(s) -
Lilley Charles R.,
Macrossan Michael N.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
international journal for numerical methods in fluids
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.938
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1097-0363
pISSN - 0271-2091
DOI - 10.1002/fld.603
Subject(s) - upstream (networking) , computation , monte carlo method , boundary (topology) , population , flux (metallurgy) , computer science , boundary value problem , statistical physics , computer simulation , simulation , mathematical optimization , mechanics , mathematics , physics , algorithm , mathematical analysis , statistics , computer network , materials science , demography , sociology , metallurgy
In the direct simulation Monte‐Carlo (DSMC) method for simulating rarefied gas flows, the velocities of simulator particles that cross a simulation boundary and enter the simulation space are typically generated using the acceptance–rejection procedure that samples the velocities from a truncated theoretical velocity distribution that excludes low and high velocities. This paper analyses an alternative technique, where the velocities of entering particles are obtained by extending the simulation procedures to a region adjacent to the simulation space, and considering the movement of particles generated within that region during the simulation time step. The alternative method may be considered as a form of acceptance–rejection procedure, and permits the generation of all possible velocities, although the population of high velocities is depleted with respect to the theoretical distribution. Nevertheless, this is an improvement over the standard acceptance–rejection method. Previous implementations of the alternative method gave a number flux lower than the theoretical number required. Two methods for obtaining the correct number flux are presented. For upstream boundaries in high‐speed flows, the alternative method is more computationally efficient than the acceptance–rejection method. However, for downstream boundaries, the alternative method is extremely inefficient. The alternative method, with the correct theoretical number flux, should therefore be used in DSMC computations in favour of the acceptance–rejection method for upstream boundaries in high‐speed flows. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.