A Comparative Study of Hydrodynamic Lattice Boltzmann Equation in Phase-Field-Based Multiphase Flow Models

IF 2.6 3区 物理与天体物理 Q1 PHYSICS, MATHEMATICAL Communications in Computational Physics Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.4208/cicp.re-2023-0066
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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于相场的多相流模型中的流体力学晶格玻尔兹曼方程比较研究
近年来,基于相场的多相流模型大受欢迎,尤其是在晶格玻尔兹曼(LB)领域。这些模型通常使用两个晶格玻尔兹曼方程(LBE),一个用于界面跟踪,另一个用于求解流体动力学特性。不过,在本文中,我们只关注流体力学的 LB 模型。我们的目标是比较研究 Lee 等人[1]、Liang 等人[2]和 Fakhari 等人[3]提出的三种经典流体力学 LB 模型之间的差异。本研究中使用的界面跟踪方程是基于保守相场模型的。我们利用查普曼-恩斯科格分析法详细推导了每个模型的控制方程。此外,我们还介绍了三种相互作用力离散化方法,并在非平衡分布法的基础上提出了梯度项的修正方法。本研究考察了三种 LB 模型与四种离散化方法相结合的精度。从结果来看,不同的模型和方法组合适用于不同类型的问题。不过,本文对梯度项流体力学模型和离散方法的选择提出了一些建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Communications in Computational Physics
Communications in Computational Physics 物理-物理:数学物理
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
84
审稿时长
9 months
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.
期刊最新文献
A Model-Data Asymptotic-Preserving Neural Network Method Based on Micro-Macro Decomposition for Gray Radiative Transfer Equations A Causality-DeepONet for Causal Responses of Linear Dynamical Systems JefiPIC: A 3-D Full Electromagnetic Particle-in-Cell Simulator Based on Jefimenko’s Equations on GPU A Comparative Study of Hydrodynamic Lattice Boltzmann Equation in Phase-Field-Based Multiphase Flow Models Finite-Volume TENO Scheme with a New Cell-Interface Flux Evaluation Strategy for Unstructured Meshes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1