Paper detail

Comparative study of equilibrium and non-equilibrium predictions by different models for a hypersonic cone at high-altitude

Targeting a cone with the half-angle as 10-deg at M = 27 and H = 72 km, simulations were conducted comparatively to analyze the predictions by different equilibrium and non-equilibrium gas models. Following validation and grid studies, systematic comparisons on aerodynamic performance, flow structures, and characteristic distributions were performed. The key findings are: (1) While the overall flow structures are broadly similar, discrepancies exist in the features at the base locations, e.g., the diverse high-temperature distributions. Notably, the vibrational temperatures distribute differently under slip and non-slip boundary conditions near the wall; (2) The equilibrium gas model predicts higher drag coefficient, wall heat flux, and skin friction than those of non-equilibrium models. Predictions also vary among the non-equilibrium models themselves. Specifically, compared to the three-temperature model, the one- and two-temperature models predict larger drag coefficients with the relative difference exceeding 5%. Nevertheless, the results from the three-temperature model with and without slip conditions are largely consistent; (3) The disparities between equilibrium and non-equilibrium characteristics are primarily manifested in the shock layer and wake regions. Within these regions, the overall temperature for the equilibrium gas is lower than that for the non-equilibrium cases, while in the latter specific non-equilibrium features are distinctly exhibited, e.g., the translational-rotational temperature is generally higher than that from the one-temperature model, and the vibrational-electronic temperature shows the opposite trend. Notably, in the slip flow within the three-temperature model, the translational-rotational temperature is higher and, particularly, the vibrational temperature is even larger than counterparts of the non-slip flows near the wall and base center line.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.