Qiang He,Yiqian Cheng,Fengming Hu,Weifeng Huang, Decai Li
{"title":"A Comparative Study of Hydrodynamic Lattice Boltzmann Equation in Phase-Field-Based Multiphase Flow Models","authors":"Qiang He,Yiqian Cheng,Fengming Hu,Weifeng Huang, Decai Li","doi":"10.4208/cicp.re-2023-0066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, phase-field-based models for multiphase flows have gained\nsignificant popularity, particularly within the lattice Boltzmann (LB) community. These\nmodels typically use two lattice Boltzmann equations (LBEs), one for interface tracking\nand the other for solving hydrodynamic properties. However, for the purposes of this\npaper, we focus only on the LB model for hydrodynamics. Our goal is to undertake a\ncomparative investigation into the differences between three classical hydrodynamic\nLB models proposed by Lee et al. [1], Liang et al. [2] and Fakhari et al. [3]. The interface-tracking equation used in this study is based on the conservative phase-field model.\nWe provide a detailed derivation of the governing equations in each model using the\nChapman-Enskog analysis. Additionally, three discretization methods for the interaction forces are introduced, and a modified method for the gradient term is proposed\nbased on the nonequilibrium distribution method. The accuracy of three LB models\nin combination with four discretization methods is examined in this study. Based on\nthe results, it appears that different combinations of models and methods are appropriate for different types of problems. However, some suggestions for the selection of\nhydrodynamic models and discrete methods for the gradient term are provided in this\npaper.","PeriodicalId":50661,"journal":{"name":"Communications in Computational Physics","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communications in Computational Physics","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4208/cicp.re-2023-0066","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MATHEMATICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In recent years, phase-field-based models for multiphase flows have gained
significant popularity, particularly within the lattice Boltzmann (LB) community. These
models typically use two lattice Boltzmann equations (LBEs), one for interface tracking
and the other for solving hydrodynamic properties. However, for the purposes of this
paper, we focus only on the LB model for hydrodynamics. Our goal is to undertake a
comparative investigation into the differences between three classical hydrodynamic
LB models proposed by Lee et al. [1], Liang et al. [2] and Fakhari et al. [3]. The interface-tracking equation used in this study is based on the conservative phase-field model.
We provide a detailed derivation of the governing equations in each model using the
Chapman-Enskog analysis. Additionally, three discretization methods for the interaction forces are introduced, and a modified method for the gradient term is proposed
based on the nonequilibrium distribution method. The accuracy of three LB models
in combination with four discretization methods is examined in this study. Based on
the results, it appears that different combinations of models and methods are appropriate for different types of problems. However, some suggestions for the selection of
hydrodynamic models and discrete methods for the gradient term are provided in this
paper.
期刊介绍:
Communications in Computational Physics (CiCP) publishes original research and survey papers of high scientific value in computational modeling of physical problems. Results in multi-physics and multi-scale innovative computational methods and modeling in all physical sciences will be featured.