Development and assessment of the interface lattice Boltzmann flux solvers for multiphase flows

Liuming Yang, Shicheng Liu, Lei Ao, Yang Yu, Guoxiang Hou and Yan Wang
Additional contact information
Liuming Yang: Green & Smart River-Sea-Going Ship, Cruise and Yacht Research Center, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430063, P. R. China
Shicheng Liu: Green & Smart River-Sea-Going Ship, Cruise and Yacht Research Center, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430063, P. R. China
Lei Ao: Green & Smart River-Sea-Going Ship, Cruise and Yacht Research Center, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430063, P. R. China
Yang Yu: School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, P. R. China
Guoxiang Hou: School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, P. R. China
Yan Wang: State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical Structures, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Yudao Street 29, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210016, P. R. China

International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), 2022, vol. 33, issue 12, 1-31

Abstract: Unlike the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM), the lattice Boltzmann flux solver (LBFS) is free from the limitation of uniform meshes, coupled time step and mesh spacing, and high memory cost. Specifically, the existing interface LBFS (LBFS-CH0) is reconstructed by locally applying the Cahn–Hilliard-based (CH-based) LBM with additional artificial terms. In the framework of LBM, the influence of the additional artificial terms has been assessed. Besides, the comparative study of the CH-based and the Allen–Cahn-based (AC-based) LBM shows that the latter has higher accuracy and stability. Though the LBFS is originated from the LBM, their performances may not be exactly the same. In this study, the AC-based and CH-based LBFS (LBFS-AC and LBFS-CH1) models which can accurately recover the phase field equations are developed from the interface LBM models without any additional terms. The gradient term in the LBFS-AC is discretized by the second-order central difference method. Compared with the LBFS-CH0, the LBFS-CH1 can eliminate the additional terms and recover the true CH equation. Then these interface LBFS models are compared to evaluate their performance and the influence of the additional terms. Different from the LBM, it is found that the CH-based LBFS is superior to the AC-based one in terms of the numerical accuracy and stability. In addition, numerical results show that the additional terms have minor effect on the ability to model the phase interface. This study can provide guidance to ensure the accuracy and stability of interface modeling. Taking into account the accuracy, stability and simplicity, we can conclude that the LBFS-CH0 model could be the first choice to simulate the phase interface in the framework of LBFS.

Keywords: Interface lattice Boltzmann flux solver; phase field method; additional terms; multiphase flows (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0129183122501650
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wsi:ijmpcx:v:33:y:2022:i:12:n:s0129183122501650

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

DOI: 10.1142/S0129183122501650

Access Statistics for this article

International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC) is currently edited by H. J. Herrmann

More articles in International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC) from World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Tai Tone Lim ().