Comparative study of the virtual flux method and immersed boundary method coupled with regularized lattice Boltzmann method for suspension flow simulations
Comparative study of the virtual flux method and immersed boundary method coupled with regularized lattice Boltzmann method for suspension flow simulations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.compfluid.2022.105615
复制
发表时间：
2022-08
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Kawaguchi;T. Fukui;K. Morinishi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Kawaguchi;T. Fukui;K. Morinishi
悬浮流动在许多领域都是普遍存在的，降低悬浮流动数值模拟的计算成本仍然是一个巨大的挑战。本文采用正则点阵玻尔兹曼方法（RLBM）对含颗粒流动进行了数值模拟。RLBM结合虚拟通量法（VFM）或浸入边界法（IBM）和多直接强迫方法，对静止边界和运动边界进行了三种模拟。比较了VFM和IBM的结果进行验证，并评估了计算效率。对于使用固定边界和移动边界的两种模拟（即通过固定圆柱体的稳定流和包含单个移动圆形粒子的平面泊泽维尔流），基于VFM和IBM的结果在质量上是可比较的。由于方案中的迭代，IBM的计算时间比VFM的计算时间长。压力驱动的悬浮液流动模拟表明，稀释悬浮液（<5%）的相对粘度几乎相等。从粒子旋转运动的角度讨论了VFM和IBM在半稀态（> - 10%）下得到的结果的差异。尽管VFM和IBM在并行计算方面的可伸缩性相当，但使用VFM而不是IBM可以有效地减少计算时间，因为悬浮浓度增加了。
Suspension flows are ubiquitous in many fields, and reducing computational costs for numerical simulations of suspension flows remains a great challenge. Numerical simulations of particle-laden flows were performed here using the regularized lattice Boltzmann method (RLBM). RLBM, coupled with the virtual flux method (VFM) or the immersed boundary method (IBM) with the multi-direct forcing approach, conducted a series of three simulations for stationary and moving boundaries. The VFM and IBM results were compared for validation, and the computational efficiency was evaluated. For the two simulations using stationary and moving boundaries (i.e., a steady flow past a stationary cylinder and a plane Poiseuille flow including a single moving circular particle), the results based on the VFM and IBM were qualitatively comparable. The computational time for IBM was longer than that for VFM due to the iterations in its scheme. The pressure-driven suspension flow simulations showed that a dilute suspension's (<5%) relative viscosity was almost equivalent. The difference between the results obtained by the VFM and IBM in the semidilute regime (>10%) was discussed in terms of particle rotational motion. Even though the scalability for parallel computing was comparable between the VFM and IBM, the computational time could be effectively reduced by using the VFM instead of the IBM because of the increased suspension concentration.