NEGF 26
5 members of ACoM took part in the 5th European Conference on Non-Equilibrium Gas Flows, which was held in Toulouse, France, from 25th to 27th of March. Eda Yılmaz presented a talk on "From 3D Tensors to 1D: A Reduction Strategy for Moment Closures in Multidimensional Systems", Dr. Satyvir Singh presented work on "Shock Wave Dynamics in Non-Equilibrium Gas Flow Regimes: Insights from Grad-Type Moment Systems", Dr. Georgii Oblapenko gave a talk on "Particle Reduction Schemes for Binning-Based Merging Approaches in Variable-Weight DSMC", visiting researcher Luke Bell presented work on "Generalized Thermodynamically Admissible 13-Moment Equations", and Prof. Torrilhon presented a talk on "A Conforming Interface Approach for Phase Transitions in Rarefied Gas Dynamics Based on the R13 Equations".
Apart from participating in the sessions, members of ACoM held many productive discussions with other members of the European non-equilibrium gas dynamics community. Dr. Georgii Oblapenko also received a prize from FLOW Matters consultancy for participating in a kinetic-theory quiz.
This image shows the distribution of points in the unit square. Pseudo-random numbers are scattered irregularly, while quasi-random numbers cover the space more evenly.
This image shows the error for different moments of the distribution function (energy and stress) during relaxation from a non-equilibrium state to equilibrium. The results demonstrate that quasi-random numbers achieve faster convergence and thus require fewer particles for the same accuracy.






The figure shows relative error of the next higher moment for a range velocity shifts in the bimodal test case. The left part of the figure shows the relative error for even number of moments while the right one shows odd cases. Different plot markers with colors represent the closure. Note, that the Gramian and extended Gramian closure are defined in the even and odd case differently.
This figure presents the proposed WB method (top row) against the non-well-balanced (NWB) variation (bottom row) and their abilities (or lack thereof) to capture a small perturbation of a steady-state. It is clear that the WB method captures the proper structure of the solution even on a coarse mesh, while the NWB method has smearing of the solution due to numerical error -- even on a refined mesh.







