Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/a-comparative-study-of-immersed-boundary-method-and-interpolated-0TXeeUPgs0
- ISSN
- 0045-7930
- eISSN
- ARCH-3341
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.compfluid.2019.06.032
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
The interpolated bounce-back scheme and the immersed boundary method are the two most popular algorithms in treating a no-slip boundary on curved surfaces in the lattice Boltzmann method. While those algorithms are fre- quently implemented in the numerical simulations involving complex geome- tries, such as particle-laden ows, their performances are seldom compared systematically over the same local quantities within the same context. In this paper, we present a systematic comparative investigation on some frequently used and most state-of-the-art interpolated bounce-back schemes and im- mersed boundary methods, based on both theoretical analyses and numerical simulations of four selected 2D and 3D laminar ow problems. Our analyses show that immersed boundary methods (IBM) typically yield a rst-order ac- curacy when the regularized delta-function is employed to interpolate velocity from the Eulerian to Lagrangian mesh, and the resulting boundary force back to the Eulerian mesh. This rst order in accuracy for IBM is observed for both the local velocity and hydrodynamic force/torque, apparently di erent from the second-order accuracy sometime claimed in the literature. An- Corresponding author Email addresses: cpengxpp@udel.edu (Cheng Peng), oayala@odu.edu (Orlando M. Ayala), lwang@udel.edu (Lian-Ping Wang) Preprint submitted to Computers and Fluids June 14, 2019 arXiv:1906.05445v1 [physics.comp-ph] 13 Jun 2019 other serious problem of immersed boundary methods is that the local stress within the di used uid-solid interface tends to be signi cantly underesti- mated. On the other hand, the interpolated bounce-back generally possesses a second-order accuracy for velocity, hydrodynamic force/torque, and local stress eld. The main disadvantage of the interpolated bounce-back schemes is its higher level of uctuations in the calculated hydrodynamic force/torque when a solid object moves across the grid lines. General guidelines are also provided for the necessary grid resolutions in the two approaches in order to accurately simulate ows over a solid particle. Keywords: lattice Boltzmann method, interpolated bounce-back schemes, immersed boundary methods, no-slip boundary 1. Introduction Over the last thirty years, the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) has been actively developed and has become a reliable tool for simulating ow problems with complex geometries, such as ow in porous media [1], uid structure interaction [2] and particle-laden turbulent ows [3, 4]. In these applications, the treatment of the no-slip boundary condition at the uid- solid interfaces is often an important issue that a ects the overall accuracy, numerical stability, and computational eciency of the lattice Boltzmann method. As a mesoscopic method based on the Boltzmann equation but with the goal to solve the macroscopic Navier-Stokes equations, the treatment of a no- slip boundary within the LBM can be exible as either the no-slip schemes used in conventional computational uid dynamics (CFD) or the microscopic properties in the Boltzmann equation may be applied and implemented. There are mainly two categories of no-slip boundary treatment in LBM simu- lations. The rst is the immersed boundary method (IBM). IBM is a popular no-slip boundary treatment developed in conventional CFD [5, 6, 7], but it can be easily incorporated within the LBM algorithm [8, 9]. The idea of IBM is to represent the e ect of the no-slip condition as a boundary force applying to the neighboring region of the uid-solid interface. In order to ensure that the no-slip condition is enforced at precisely the location of the boundary, a body- tted Lagrangian grid is usually attached to the surface of each solid object besides the Eulerian grid covering the whole computational domain. A regularized delta function is employed to interpolate information 2 between the Eulerian and Lagrangian grids [5, 6]. Depending on how the boundary force that enforces the no-slip condition is calculated, IBM can be grouped as penalty IBM [10] or direct-forcing IBM [11]. For problems involving only non-deformable rigid surfaces, direct-forcing IBM is preferred due to its clearer physical picture and better numerical stability. The second category of no-slip boundary treatment in LBM is to di- rectly construct the unknown distribution functions at the boundary nodes using the known ones while observing the hydrodynamic constraints. This type of algorithm is known as bounce-back schemes. The early bounce- back scheme such as that proposed by Ladd [12] approximates a curved surface as a staircase shaped polylines when applied to a complex geom- etry. The improved bounce-back schemes were developed later to address this de ciency [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. While the detailed algorithms are not unique, the idea of these improved schemes are similar, which is to construct the unknown distribution functions to have at least a second-order accu- racy. These schemes are typically referred to as the interpolated bounce- back (IBB) schemes. It is known that the hydrodynamic equations can be obtained from the Chapman-Enskog expansion of the Boltzmann equation, however, it is not completely clear whether the IBB schemes are consistent with the Chapman-Enskog expansion at the boundary nodes. The accuracy and numerical stability of the IBB schemes are typically examined only by numerical tests. In the past, both IBM and IBB were extensively used by the LBM com- munity in a wide range of applications. Although each method is validated in a few numerical tests on its own, systematic comparative studies between the two sets of methods are rare. Peng & Luo [18] compared performances of Bouzidi et al.'s quadratic IBB scheme [13] and Feng & Michaelides's direct- forcing IBM-LBM [8], focusing on evaluating the drag and lift coecients of a cylinder placed at di erent location facing a uniform stream. They observed that while the numerical error in the integrated force evaluation generally followed a second-order convergence rate, the results from the IBB scheme are much more accurate than those from IBM-LBM. As will become clearer later with the present work, although in certain cases the hydrodynamic force/torque evaluation does possess a second-order accuracy, such observa- tion may not be generalized for arbitrary ows. Chen et al. [19] compared a few IBB schemes and IBM-LBM algorithms in simulating the acoustic waves scattering on static and moving cylinder surfaces. They reported that while IBB schemes outperformed in accuracy in static cylinder cases, IBM-LBM 3 could be a better choice in cases with moving objects in terms of suppressing the high-frequent uctuations (i.e., the grid jitter problem) associated with objects crossing the grid mesh lines. While these previous comparative studies are useful, a re-examination of the inter-comparison of the two treatments is still necessary, for several reasons. First, in the aforementioned studies, the benchmark results used as standards are usually from other simulations, rather than from the theory. This brings diculty to rigorously gauge the accuracy of a method. For example, in the study of Peng & Luo [18], as will be shown, the IBM-LBM method is of only rst-order accuracy; it remains a puzzle that the rst- order accurate IBM-LBM could lead to second-order converged drag and lift force evaluations. In many validation studies of IBM, the Taylor-Green ow without a solid- uid interface was employed [6, 20]. This validation is not so meaningful since the accurate ow eld can be obtained with or without the IBM. Second, it is important to follow the recent developments in both categories of methods in order to make unbiased conclusions. For example, Breugem [7] proposed an improved IBM by retracting the locations of the Lagrangian grid points from the surface of a solid object towards the interior of the solid object. It is claimed this retraction could improve the accuracy of IBM from rst-order to second-order. Zhou & Fan [21] incorporated this improvement to LBM that seemed to reach a similar conclusion. On the other hand, IBB schemes are also under further developments. A good example is the single-node second-order accurate IBB scheme by Zhao & Yong [22], which allows the second-order accurate no-slip boundary to be realized using the information only on the boundary node itself. This scheme is particularly useful for cases such as dense particle suspension where the gap between two solid surfaces is too narrow for other IBB schemes to be executed. Whether these new developments would alter the conclusions made in the previous comparative studies is yet to be examined. In this paper, we examine the performance of several selected IBM algo- rithms and IBB schemes in ows with reliable benchmark results. Those IBM algorithms and IBB schemes are chosen because they have been implemented in complex simulations such as direct numerical simulations of particle-laden turbulent ows [23, 24, 3, 4, 25]. In order to assess the reliability of the reported results, it is important to test the accuracy and robustness of these methods in relatively simpler laminar ows that are easier to analyze. The rest of the paper is arranged as the following. In Sec. 2, we brie y introduce LBM and the selected IBB schemes and IBM algorithms to be examined. 4 Then, the performances of these no-slip boundary treatments are compared in some carefully chosen two-dimensional and three-dimensional laminar ow tests in Sec. 3. Finally, the key observations will be summarized in Sec. 4. 2. The lattice Boltzmann method and its no-slip boundary treat- ments The evolution equation of LBM can be viewed as a fully discrete form of the Boltzmann BGK equation in space and time, with a selected set of particle velocities h i (eq) f (x; e ; t + ) f (x; t) = f (x; t) f (x; t) + F (x; t) ; (1) i i t t i i i where f is the particle distribution function for the discrete velocity e , x and i i (eq) t are the spatial coordinate and time, respectively. f is the equilibrium distribution of f , F is the term representing the body force in the Boltzmann i i equation. is the non-dimensional relaxation time, which is related to the kinematic viscosity as = ( 0:5) c ; (2) with c being the speed of sound. Eq. (1) is known as the lattice BGK equation, whose collision operator (right-hand side of Eq. (1)) contains only one relaxation time . Alterna- tively, if the collision operator is constructed in the moment space through linear transformation, di erent moments can be relaxed at di erent rates, the evolution equation of LBM can then be expressed as 1 (eq) 1 f (x; e ; t + ) f (x; t) = M S m (x; t) m (x; t) + M (x; t) : i t t (3) which possesses larger exibility in the model design. f is the vector expres- (eq) sion of f . m, m , and are the moment vector, equilibrium moment vector, and the forcing vector, respectively. M is the transform matrix that relates the moment vector and vector of distribution functions as m = Mf and f = M m. LBM using Eq. (3) as the evolution equation is known as the multi-relaxation time (MRT) LBM. More details regarding Eq. (1) and Eq. (3) can be found in the textbooks [26] and other classic articles of LBM [27, 28], thus they are not repeated here. 5 2.1. Immersed boundary-lattice Boltzmann method The standard LBM can be viewed as a mesoscopic alternative of the in- compressible Navier-Stokes solver in the weakly compressible limit. The no- slip boundary treatments in conventional CFD may be incorporated in LBM. The most popular method that has been used widely in CFD for the no-slip boundary treatment on arbitrarily shaped surface is the immersed boundary method (IBM). The rst incorporation of IBM into LBM has been achieved by Feng & Michaelides [29]. Since then, there have been many variations of the method in terms of the calculation the boundary force and the incorpo- ration of this force into the evolution equation of LBM. The boundary force in IBM-LBM can be calculated by the penalty feedback forcing [29], direct forcing [8], and momentum exchange forcing [30]. Among these three force calculation methods, the direct forcing is the most popular one due to its sim- plicity and the capability to use larger CFL numbers [6]. The direct-forcing IBM has been made particularly ecient to realize the no-slip condition on rigid particle surfaces in particle-laden ows [23, 24, 4]. In this study, we focus our attention on the evaluation of direct-forcing IBM algorithms that has been frequently used in the three-dimensional ow simulations with a large number of particles. In these algorithms, two sets of grids, a xed Eu- lerian grid is used to store the information of the ow eld, and a Lagrangian grid attached to the solid surface is used to ensure the no-slip condition is enforced precisely on the physical location. Uhlmann signi cantly simpli ed the algorithm of direct-forcing IBM as ve key steps [6]. First, the known velocity eld stored at the Eulerian grid u is evolved to a temporary velocity eld u ~ by solving the N-S equations without considering the boundary force. u ~ u = (ur) u rp + r u: (4) Next, this temporary velocity eld at the Eulerian grid x is interpolated to the Lagrangian grid X. U (X) = u ~ (x) (x X) h ; (5) 6 where is the interpolation kernel which typically has a form of the regu- larized delta function [5]. By default, the four-point delta-function [5] 1 x x x 1 2 3 = ; h h h h 0; jrj 2; < p (6) 5 2jrj 7 + 12jrj 4r ; 1 jrj < 2 (r) = 8 > p 3 2jrj + 1 + 4jrj 4r ; 0 jrj < 1; derived by Peskin is used for all the simulations presented below, unless speci ed otherwise. h is the volume of a Eulerian grid cell. By default, we use the uppercase letters to represent the properties on the Lagrangian grid and the lowercase letters to represent the properties on the Eulerian grid. Next, the boundary force F(X) used to enforce the no-slip condition on the Lagrangian grid should be calculated as U (X) U(X) F(X) = : (7) Then, this boundary force is distributed back to the Eulerian grid. f (x) = F (X) (x X) V; (8) where V is the control volume of a Lagrangian grid, which is typically chosen as V h [6]. At last, the obtained force eld is used to update n+1 the velocity eld from u ~ to u . n+1 u = u ~ + ft; (9) Eq. (4) to Eq. (9) well describe a direct-forcing IBM algorithm in CFD. There are di erent ways to incorporate the above algorithm into the frame of LBM [31, 9, 20, 32]. Since the interpolation via delta function only has a rst-order accuracy on a general uid-solid surface (which will be proven later) [5, 32], the choice of a speci c algorithm may not a ect the accuracy of the simulation results that much. Of course, it is more reasonable to use the mesoscopic forcing terms in the evolution equations of LBM, i.e., F in Eq. (1) or in Eq. (3), which ensures a second-order accuracy when applied to a non-uniform force eld, as the boundary force redistributed back to the Eulerian grid is a non-uniform force eld. When the lattice BGK equation 7 is employed, both Guo's scheme [28] and Cheng & Li's scheme [33] possess the second-order accuracy when applied to a non-uniform force eld. These two schemes are actually identical (proven in [20]). When the MRT-LBM equation is used, the forcing term can be constructed using the inverse design, as demonstrated in [34]. In the direct-forcing IBM algorithm described in Eq. (4) to Eq. (9), the boundary force is de ned as a correction force that brings the uid velocity to target one at the next time step n + 1. The IB-LBM algorithm that cor- responds to this algorithm is the implicit velocity correction based IB-LBM developed by Wu & Shu [9]. In this algorithm, Guo's forcing scheme [28] is used. Kang & Hassan [20] developed a similar algorithm using Cheng & Li's forcing scheme [33]. The only concern about these correction-based IB-LBM algorithms is whether they are fully consistent with the Chapman-Enskog expansion. When Guo's forcing scheme is used, half of the force is added when calculating the velocity eld from the distribution functions [28]. How- ever, in the correction based IB-LBM, this half force is absent in order to calculate an \unforced" velocity eld. The same issue can be identi ed in Kang & Hassan's algorithm with Cheng & Li's forcing scheme. The implicit force eld that should be added right after the propagation of the distribution functions is postponed after the update of the hydrodynamic properties (den- sity, velocity, etc.) as a correction [20]. A more consistent algorithm of the correction-based IB-LBM may be the one developed by Zhang et al. [32] re- cently. In this algorithm, the implicit force eld added after the propagation of the distribution functions is obtained through iterations [32]. However, in the simulations with a large number of particles, the iteration is usually undesired. The speci c IB-LBM algorithm we examine in this paper is a relatively simple one. At each step, prior to the evolution of distribution functions, the boundary force is rst calculated as Eq. (7). This boundary force is then distributed to the Eulerian grid, and used for evolving the distribution func- tions according to Eq. (1) or Eq. (3). The boundary force in this algorithm is therefore a force responding to the presence of a solid force at the current time, rather than a force that enforce the no-slip condition at the next time step. 2.2. Interpolated bounce-back schemes The essence of bounce-back schemes is to directly construct the un- known distribution functions from the known ones and the hydrodynamic 8 e qΔx Δx x x x x fff ff f w Figure 1: A sketch of a uid-solid interface in a LBM simulation. constraints at the boundary nodes. With the boundary con guration in Fig. 1, a simple bounce-back scheme can be written as [12] e u i w f (x ; t + ) = f (x ; t) + 2 w ; (10) i f t f 0 i where f (x ; t + ) and f (x ; t) are the bounce-back distribution function i f t f and the incident distribution function, both locate at the boundary node x and with e = e . u is the velocity at the wall location x . The last term i w w on the right-hand side is used to ensure the no-slip condition when the solid boundary is moving. Eq. (10) means that the post-collision particles traveling towards a wall return back along the same location after bouncing back from the wall, thus the scheme obtained its name. Since the distribution function travels precisely one grid spacing from t to t + , the particles start from x t f can end precisely at the same location only when x is half a grid spacing from the wall. In fact, when this condition is not satis ed, the bounce- back scheme of Eq. (10) only has the rst-order accuracy, which restricts its application on an arbitrarily shaped surface. In order to ensure that the second-order spatial accuracy in a bounce-back process for more general cases, interpolation is usually required. Since the number of unknown distribution functions is usually larger than the number of hydrodynamic constraints, the method to design interpolated bounce-back schemes is not unique. Two representative interpolated bounce-back schemes are the conditional scheme proposed by Bouzidi et al. [13], and the uni ed 9 scheme by Yu et al. [16]. In Bouzidi et al.'s scheme, when the relative distance from the boundary node point to the wall location, i.e., q = jx x j=jx f w f x j, is smaller than 0.5, a virtual distribution function is interpolated rst at x so that the molecules represented by this virtual distribution function ends precisely at x after the bounce back from the wall. Apparently, x locates f i between x and the neighboring uid node x , thus the virtual distribution f ff function can be interpolated from the corresponding distribution functions at x , x , and x . On the other hand, when q 0:5, x locates between f ff fff i x and x , the interpolation becomes extrapolation, which could result in f w numerical instability. To avoid this, the streaming is proceeded rst, i.e., the distribution function at x rst bounce-back from the wall and ends at a temporary location x . Then the unknown distribution function at x is t f interpolated with the corresponding distribution functions at x , x , and t ff x . Bouzidi et al.'s interpolated bounce-back scheme can be summarized fff as f (x ; t + ) = q (2q + 1) f (x ; t) + (1 + 2q) (1 2q) f (x ; t) i f t f ff i i e u (11a) i w q (1 2q) f (x ; t) + 2 w ; q < 0:5; fff 0 i 1 e u i w f (x ; t + ) = f (x ; t) + 2 w i f t f 0 i q (2q + 1) c (11b) 2q 1 2q 1 + f (x ; t + ) f (x ; t + ) ; q 0:5: i ff t i fff t q 1 + 2q Alternatively, Yu et al. designed a uni ed IBB scheme for all values of q from 0 to 1. Their idea is straightforward. First, a virtual distribution function is interpolated between x and x , which ends exactly at the wall location f ff after streaming a grid spacing towards the wall, i.e., q (q + 1) q (1 q) f (x ; t + ) = f (x ; t)+(1 + q) (1 q) f (x ; t) f (x ; t) : w t f ff fff i i i 2 2 (12) Next, an instantaneous bounce-back happens right after the virtual distribu- tion function arrives at the wall location e u i w f (x ; t + ) = f (x ; t + ) + 2 w (13) i w t i w t 0 i At last, the unknown distribution function f (x ; t + ) is interpolated from i f t 10 f (x ; t + ), f (x ; t + ) and f (x ; t + ) as i w t i ff t i fff t f (x ; t + ) = f (x ; t + ) i f t i w t (1 + q) (2 + q) (14) 2q q + f (x ; t + ) f (x ; t + ) : i ff t i fff t 1 + q 2 + q In practice, it is more ecient to combine the above three steps into a single equation involving up to ve distribution functions, which reads q 2 (1 q) f (x ; t + ) = f (x ; t) + f (x ; t) i f t f ff i i 2 + q 1 + q (1 q) q 2q f (x ; t) + f (x ; t + ) (15) fff i ff t (1 + q) (2 + q) 1 + q q 4 e u i w f (x ; t + ) + w : i fff t 0 i 2 + q (1 + q) (2 + q) c While these two schemes are constantly used in LBM for no-slip boundary treatment on curved surfaces. A potential issue is that they require not only the information at the boundary node itself, i.e., x , but also the distribution functions at x and x to process the interpolation. When two solid ff fff surfaces sit very close, which frequently happens in particle-laden ows with dense particle suspensions, Eq.(10) has to be used instead, where the overall accuracy of the boundary treatment might be contaminated. This potential issue is resolved with the recently proposed single-node second-order bounce- back scheme by Zhao & Yong [22], which reads 2q 1 2 e u i w f (x ; t + ) = f (x ; t) + f (x ; t) + w : (16) i f t f i f 0 i 1 + 2q 1 + 2q 1 + 2q c Unlike the previous two IBB schemes that construct f (x ; t + ) purely i f t from the post-collision distribution functions. Zhao & Yong's scheme utilize both the pre-collision and post-collision distribution functions to ful ll the \interpolation". The second-order accuracy of this scheme can be rigorously proven by an asymptotic analysis [22]. It is also worth mentioning that an alternative single-node second-order bounce-back scheme was recently pro- posed by Tao et al. [35]. We were made aware of this scheme quite late thus it is not included in our comparisons shown below. The three IBB schemes, i.e., Bouzidi et al's scheme, Yu et al's scheme, as well as Zhao & Yong's scheme will be used in the numerical examinations in 11 Sec. 3. With the use of bounce-back schemes, the natural way to calculate the hydrodynamic force and torque acting on a solid surface is the momentum exchange method [12, 36, 37]. Although the combinations of bounce-back schemes and momentum exchange method do not ensure the instantaneous Galilean invariance [38], their accuracy has been proven to be sucient in most simulations [39, 40]. In particular, the Galilean invariant momentum exchange method (GIMEM) proposed by Wen et al. [37], F = [f (x ; t) (e u ) f (x ; t + ) (e u )] ; (17a) t f w i f t i w x ;i T = (x Y ) [f (x ; t) (e u ) f (x ; t + ) (e u )] ; t w c f w i f t i w x ;i (17b) will be used in the subsequent numerical examinations to reduce the \grid locking" (\grid locking" will be discussed in detail later) [39]. This is di erent from the original MEM [12, 36]. 3. Numerical examinations Appropriately chosen validation cases help us better evaluate the perfor- mance of the boundary treatment schemes. In the earlier investigations, the accuracy of IBM was often validated in the ow of a two-dimensional Taylor- Green vortex ow. These tests, in our view, are not so meaningful since the accurate ow eld can be obtained with or without the boundary forcing. The only information one may obtain from these tests is perhaps that IBM does not contaminate the second-order accuracy of LBM when it is applied to a smooth ow eld . Unfortunately, the velocity across a real solid- uid interface is usually not smooth [5]. Another often used test ow is a uniform ow passing a 2D cylinder or 3D sphere at nite Reynolds number. In this case, since the analytic solution is unavailable, while it is safe to validate whether a boundary treatment method is generating reasonable results, it is dicult to assess rigorously the accuracy and compare the results among di erent methods. the smooth ow eld is de ned as a eld where the velocity gradient normal to the interface is continuous, see Peskin [5] 12 Ω Figure 2: A sketch of a Taylor-Couette ow In this paper, we choose four test ows to benchmark the performances of IBB schemes and IBM algorithms. The two-dimensional circular Couette ow and the three-dimensional laminar pipe ow are chosen since analytic solutions are available in the two ows that can help benchmarking the ac- curacy of each boundary treatment when a actual curved wall presents. A case of two-dimensional cylinder settling in a quiescent ow is used to ex- amine the performance of each boundary treatment in predicting the motion of the objects in a viscous uid. At last, a case of a uniform ow passing a static sphere is employed to assess the grid resolution requirement for each boundary treatment in order to obtain reliable hydrodynamic force acting on a spherical particle at di erent Reynolds numbers. 3.1. Transient circular Couette ow The purpose of the present study is to assess the performance of the boundary treatment schemes in general cases with curved and moving bound- aries. For this purpose, the circular Couette ow, or Taylor-Couette ow between two concentric cylinders is employed. A sketch of this ow is shown 13 in Fig. 2. The analytic solution of this ow is available in [41]. We repeat it in Appendix A simply for readers' convenience. In the simulations presented below, the inner cylinder is xed while the outer cylinder rotates with an angular velocity that de nes the ow Reynolds number Re = (R R ) R = = 45. The ratio of the outer to inner 2 1 2 2 cylinder radius, , is set to 2. The simulations are conducted using the D2Q9 MRT collision model but run with a single relaxation time, i.e., the equilibrium and the body force terms are de ned in the moment space but all the relaxation times in matrix S are identical. Unlike in LBM-IBB simulations where the boundary treatment is purely determined by the information from the uid region (white region in Fig. 2), in the LBM-IBM simulations the whole domain, including the solid region (gray region in Fig. 2), is lled with the same uid and the ows outside and inside the solid region may be inter-connected through the N-S equations. Therefore, how the ow in the solid region is treated may a ect the ow within the uid region. Speci cally, in the Circular Couette ow, appropriate treatment of the boundary of the computational domain (red solid lines in Fig. 2) plays an important role in ensuring the correctness of the results, especially when the outer cylinder is rotating. To demonstrate this point, we present the velocity pro les at di erent non-dimensional times (t = t=(R R ) ) from two LBM-IBM simulations, both use Breugem's IBM [7] with a retraction distance 0:3x to treat the two no-slip conditions on the cylinder surfaces, but with Dirichlet boundary (a) u = 0; u = 0, (b) u = 0; u = r r 2 on the edges of the computational domain. The grid resolution used for the simulations is R = 25x. The pro les are generated by averaging the velocity at the grid nodes sitting in 25 equal-width bins with the width of dr = (R R )=25. Obviously, with setting (a), the velocity pro les of the 2 1 simulation deviate from the theoretical solution, while with setting (b), the velocity pro les match the theoretical solution quite well. This observation leads to the rst remark that cautions must be given to the treatment of ow in the solid region when IBM is used. As we shall observe later in Fig 6, even setting (b) can result in a signi cant error in the hydrodynamic force evaluation. Unfortunately, the treatment on the edges of the computational domain is usually irrelevant to the physical description of the ow. The LBM-IBB simulation, on the other hand, does not su er from the same problem. The construction on the unknown distribution functions at the boundary nodes purely depends on the information in the uid region. The velocity pro les of the LBM-IBB simulation with Bouzidi et al.'s quadratic 14 interpolation scheme are in good agreement with the theory, as shown in Fig. 3(c). To quantify the numerical error of the results in a simulation, the L1- and L2-norms, de ned as [Q (x) Q (x)] s t kQ (x) Q (x)k s t P q " = ; " = ; (18) L1 L2 kQ (x)k 2 [Q (x)] are calculated, where Q and Q are the numerical result and theoretical re- s t sult, respectively. The convergence rates of the L2-norm of the velocity elds at the steady state are presented in Fig. 4, for three LBM-IBM simulations, i.e., with the IBM scheme of by Uhlmann (\LBM-IBM-Uhlmann"), and with the IBM scheme proposed by Breugem with two di erent retraction distances, 0:3x and 0:4x (\LBM-IBM-Breugem, R = 0:3" and \LBM-IBM-Breugem, R = 0:4"), as well as three LBM-IBB simulations, using the quadratic in- terpolation schemes by Bouzidi et al. (\LBM-IBB-Bouzidi") and Yu et al. (\LBM-IBB-Yu"), and the single-node bounce-back scheme by Zhao & Yong (\LBM-IBB-Zhao"). The boundary force in the three LBM-IBM simulations are iterated for 5 times to ensure the representation of the no-slip boundary on the Lagrangian points is suciently accurate. As clearly demonstrated in Fig. 4, the velocity elds in the three LBM-IBM simulations are always of rst-order accuracy, while these from all the three LBM-IBB simulations are of second-order accuracy. The rst-order accuracy of the LBM-IBM is a result of the fact that the delta-function used to interpolate information between the Eulerian and Lagrangian grids possesses second-order accuracy only for a smooth interface where the velocity gradient normal to the interface is continuous [42, 5, 6]. While this remark is already quite well-known in IBM, we here provide a theoretical proof in the Appendix B. The idea of this proof is to assume the velocity prior to the boundary forcing process is exact, and examine what is the order of the error generated in the boundary forcing process. Although the retraction of Lagrangian grid does not improve the order of accuracy of the velocity calculation in the LBM-IBM simulation, it does signi cantly reduce the magnitudes of the error at all resolutions (the results labeled Uhlmann in Fig. 4 is equal to the case with zero retraction distance). Breugem (2012) examined the e ect of the retraction distance in a few ow examples, such as a uniform ow passing a xed sphere and the laminar 15 (a) (b) r / R r / R 1 1 (c) r / R Figure 3: Velocity pro les of a transient Taylor-Couette ow: (a) LBM-IBM simulation with Breugem's IBM scheme with a retraction distance of 0:3x, the velocity on the edges of the computational domain is set as u = 0; u = 0; (b) same as (a), except that the velocity on the edges of the computational domain is set as u = 0; u = r; (c) LBM-IBB r 2 simulation with Bouzidi et al.'s quadratic interpolated bounce-back scheme. u / Ω R θ 2 2 u / Ω R θ 2 2 u / Ω R θ 2 2 (R −R )/δx 1 2 Figure 4: Error convergence rates of the velocity eld in the LBM-IBM and LBM-IBB simulations. The dash line and the solid line are references of slop -1 and -2, respectively. The same applied to all gures in the rest of the paper. pipe ow, and suggested that R = 0:3x was the general optimal retraction distance. Zhou & Fan (2014) also con rmed such observation in LBM-IBM that an optimized retraction distance should be 0:3x R 0:4x. The three-point delta-function of Roma et al. [43] was adopted in both studies to draw this conclusion. Intuitively, since the physical uid-solid interface is di used at di erent levels by di erent delta-functions, the optimal retraction distance to o set such di usion should be delta-function dependent. To con rm this point, we simulate the same TC ow with di erent combi- nations of three delta-functions, i.e., the four-point piecewise delta-function used above, the three-point piecewise delta-function by Roma et al., and the two-point linear delta-function, and ve retraction distances R = 0, R = 0:1x, R = 0:2x, R = 0:3x, and R = 0:4x. It should be noted d d d d that the three-point piecewise delta-function and the two-point linear delta- function di use the physical uid-solid interface less than their four-point counterpart, which may bring a negative impact on the numerical stability. In fact, with all the other simulation setup parameters being identical to what were used earlier, switching to the three-point and two-point delta-functions made the code diverge. To ensure numerical stability with all combinations, L2 a smaller ow Reynolds number Re = (R R ) R = = 15 is used in- 2 1 2 2 stead. The convergence rates of the steady state velocity elds in di erent cases are shown in Fig. 5. In each simulation, the boundary force is still iter- ated for 5 times to ensure better no-slip boundary representation. As shown in Fig. 5, when the two-point linear delta-function is used, the retraction distances of R = 0:1x and R = 0:2x result in the most accurate velocity d d eld. With more di usive delta-functions, the optimized retraction distance becomes larger in magnitude. With the three-point delta-function, the opti- mized retraction distance is between R = 0:2x and R = 0:3x; while with d d the four-point delta-function, the best result is observed when R = 0:3x and R = 0:4x. Another observation worth mentioning is that, for the cur- rent Reynolds number Re = 15, with four-point delta function (Fig. 5(c)), the retraction distance of R = 0:4x only results in slightly more accu- rate velocity eld than the retraction distance of R = 0:3x. However, as shown in Fig. 4, when the Reynolds number increases to Re = 45, the results improve much more signi cantly when R is increased from 0.3 to 0.4. A Reynolds number dependence of the optimized retraction distance may also be expected. Unlike LBM-IBM, the interpolated bounce-back schemes can preserve the second-order spatial accuracy when curved no-slip surfaces are present. This is because the interpolation schemes ensure the construction of the unknown distribution functions at the boundary grid points is of second- or higher-order spatial accuracy. Particularly, the single-node bounce-back scheme by Zhao & Yong is able to achieve a second-order accuracy using only the information at the boundary node itself. This scheme is useful when simulating ow in porous media, or ows with dense particle suspensions, where narrow gaps can form between two solid surfaces that disables multiple- point interpolations. With the contribution of Zhao & Yong's bounce-back scheme, the no-slip boundary treatment via IBB should possess second-order accuracy in any situation. We next examine the accuracy of simulated hydrodynamic force in LBM- IBM and LBM-IBB. In LBM-IBM, the boundary force and torque have al- ready been calculated at each Lagrangian grid, obtaining the total hydro- dynamic force and torque acting on the solid objects simply amounts to summing up the contributions over all the Lagrangian grid points. When LBM-IBB is used, the hydrodynamic force and torque are calculated with Eq. (17). A slight di erence to note is that when LBM-IBB is used, the force calculated with the momentum exchange method contains a hydrostatic pres- 18 (a) (b) 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 (R −R )/δx (R −R )/δx 1 2 1 2 (c) 1.0 2.0 (R −R )/δx 1 2 Figure 5: The convergence rates of velocity eld with di erent delta-functions, (a) two- point linear delta-function, (b) three-point delta-function, (c) four-point delta-function. L2 L2 L2 t* Figure 6: The time-dependent torque acting on the inner and outer cylinders. sure contribution in the wall-normal direction since there is no uid inside the solid domain. On the other hand, the force calculated in LBM-IBM contains only the viscous stress, as node points exist on both sides of the boundary. Fig. 6 shows the torques acting on the inner and outer cylinders for the same cases shown in Fig. 3(b) and 3(c). The two solid black lines represent the analytic torque on the inner and outer cylinders at the steady state. While the torque results of LBM-IBB match well with the analytic results on both cylinders, the result of LBM-IBM has a signi cant deriva- tion from the theory on the outer cylinder. This is again due to the poor treatment on edges of the computational domain. Rather than setting the Dirichlet boundary u = 0; u = r, a better boundary condition potentially r 2 reduces the error. However, this information is not available in the physical problem description. The accuracy of torque evaluation in di erent simula- tions is presented in Fig. 7. The results of the torque on the outer cylinder in LBM-IBM simulations are no longer included. Again, the torque evaluations in the three LBM-IBM simulations are still rst-order accurate, with or with- out retracting the Lagrangian grid. This observation seems to con ict with the conclusion reported in the literature that the retraction of Lagrangian T / (ρνΩR ) 2 grid in IBM results in a second-order accurate total force/torque. As shown in Appendix B, the local velocity elds in IBM have only rst-order accuracy, which constrains the accuracy of local force evaluation to be the rst order. Whether the rst-order error at each Lagrangian grid point can be canceled out to result in a second-order accurate total force/torque depends on the speci c ow patterns. In a Taylor-Couette ow, the ow is azimuthally in- dependent, which means the local error of hydrodynamic force calculation at each Lagrangian grid point should be the same. In this case, the rst-order local errors cannot be cancelled out, as such the total hydrodynamic force remains to have only a rst-order accuracy. On the other hand, in cases of a uniform ow passing a xed cylinder or sphere, symmetric ow pattern may form around the cylinder/sphere. In such cases, the rst-order local error contributed by each Lagrangian point may cancel out precisely to yield a second-order accuracy for the total force. The latter observation has been widely reported in the literature [18, 7, 21], and also con rmed by our own simulation in Sec. 3.4. We emphasize that the hydrodynamic force/torque calculation in IBM cannot reach the second-order accuracy in general. On the contrary, the torques calculated with momentum exchange method in the LBM-IBB simulations are always second-order accurate. This is because the bounced-back distribution function in Eq. (17) are of second-order accuracy, same as the accuracy of the interpolated bounce-back schemes. We last examine the calculation of the dissipation rate in di erent LBM- IBM and LBM-IBB simulations. The dissipation rate is an important quan- tity in turbulent ows that a ects the energy budget in a ow. In turbu- 0 0 lent ows, the dissipation rate is often de ned as " = 2s s , where s ij ij ij is the velocity strain rate tensor, \ " indicates its uctuation part in the Reynolds decomposition [44]. Here in the laminar ow, the velocity is not decomposed and the dissipation rate is de ned as " = 2s s instead. In ij ij the framework of LBM, there are two di erent ways to calculate the strain rate tensor s = 0:5 (@u =@x + @u =@x ). The rst way is to use a nite- ij i j j i di erence approximation, as adopted in conventional CFD. To preserve the accuracy, a second- or higher-order nite-di erence scheme is usually re- quired. Alternatively, s in LBM can be calculated directly as a moment ij of the non-equilibrium distribution functions. According to the Chapman- Enskog expansion and taking the D2Q9 MRT collision operator used in the 21 1.0 2.0 (R −R )/δx 1 2 Figure 7: The convergence rates of the torque evaluation error. simulation, the three components in s can be calculated as ij @u s 3s 1 s 3s e n e n (1) (1) = m m + ; e n e n @x 4 t 4 t 4 2 s 2 s 0 0 0 e n (19a) @v s 3s 1 s 3s e n e n (1) (1) = m + m ; e n e n @y 4 t 4 t 4 2 s 2 s 0 0 0 e n (19b) 1 @u @v 3s 1 3s c c (1) + = m ; (19c) 2 @y @x 2 t 2 2 s 0 0 c where s , s and s are the relaxation parameters for the energy, nor- e n c (1) (eq) mal stress and shear stress moments, respectively. m m m , e e (1) (eq) (1) (eq) m m m , m m m are their corresponding leading-order n n n c c c non-equilibrium part. , , are the corresponding components in the e n c mesoscopic forcing term in Eq. (3), whose de nition can be found in [34]. Compared to the nite-di erence approximation, the mesoscopic method of calculating the strain rate tensor from the non-equilibrium moments (or dis- tribution functions if LBGK collision operator is used) ensures a second-order || (T − T ) / T || S T T accuracy even when the velocity eld in the LBM simulation is of the same second-order accuracy [45, 46], which makes it generally preferred. The pro les of dissipation rate in the two simulations shown in Fig. 3 and 3(c) are exhibited in Fig. 8(a). For the LBM-IBM simulation, the dissipa- tion rate is calculated in three di erent ways, i.e., 1) with the second-order central nite-di erence scheme (FD1), 2) use the second-order central di er- ence scheme in the bulk uid region, but replace with a second-order upwind scheme near the two solid surfaces to exclude the grid points in the solid re- gion from the calculation (FD2), and 3) from the non-equilibrium moments (ME). In the LBM-IBB simulation, for the sake of simplicity, only the meso- scopic method is employed. As shown in Fig. 8, no matter which method is employed to calculate the dissipation rate in the LBM-IBM simulation, the results are always signi cantly smaller than the theory. This is probably be- cause IBM smooths out the sharp uid-solid interfaces and reduces the local velocity gradient in the interface region. Excluding the grid points inside the solid volume improves the accuracy of dissipation rate calculation near the boundary but a large part of the error still remains. In the uid region away from boundary (1:2 r=R 1:8), the dissipation rate results of the LBM-IBM simulations become acceptable, with only a slight over-prediction of the dissipation rate. The local dissipation rate result in LBM-IBB, on the other hand, is in excellent agreement with the theory. In the uid region away from boundary (1:2 r=R 1:8), the calculated dissipation rate from LBM-IBM is acceptable, but it is still worse than that in LBM-IBB. This indicates that the overall accuracy of IBB in terms of no-slip boundary treatment is much better than that in IBM. The convergence rates of the dissipation rate calculation in the LBM-IBM and LBM-IBB are presented in Fig. 9. Since the non-uniform distributions of the error in the LBM-IBM simulations (see Fig. 8) tend to amplify the L2 norm, only the L1 norm is presented. For conciseness, only the dissipation rate calculated by the mesoscopic way are presented. Clearly, the dissipation rate in LBM-IBM is of only the rst-order accuracy, while the dissipation rate in LBM-IBB is of the second-order accuracy. The L1 error in the latter is about one to two orders of magnitude smaller. While using IBM to treat the no-slip boundary can lead to signi cant numerical errors in dissipation rate results near the uid-solid interfaces, the results of the total dissipation summing over the whole uid domain tend to be more acceptable. The cor- responding results are shown in Fig. 10. This is because the underestimated dissipation rates near the uid-solid interfaces due to the di used boundary 23 r / R Figure 8: The pro les of the dissipation rate. are o set by their overestimated counterparts away from the interfaces, which can be seen in Fig. 8. Nevertheless, the above comparisons indicate that the regular de nition of dissipation rate may need to be improved in order to account for the di used boundary e ect in IBM. This aspect receives little attention in the past, thus further investigations are certainly required. 3.2. Sedimentation of a cylinder in a vertical channel Next we compare the performance of the interpolated bounce-back schemes and immersed boundary methods in calculating the force/torque on a mov- ing solid object. For a solid object immersed in a viscous uid, the governing equations for its translational motion and angular rotation read d~v V = ~ ~n ds + ( ) V ~g + F + ; (20a) p p p f p int dt @s d!~ ~ ~ I = ~r ~ ~n ds + T + ; (20b) p int dt @s where and are the densities of the solid and uid phases, respectively. p f V is the volume of the solid object, ~g is the gravitational acceleration, F p int and T are the force and torque due to the interaction with other solid int ε / νΩ 2 1.0 2.0 (R −R )/δx 1 2 Figure 9: The convergence rates of the dissipation rate calculation. 1.0 2.0 (R −R )/δx 1 2 Figure 10: The convergence rates of the total dissipation rate in the whole uid domain. || (ε − ε ) / ε || S T T L1 objects. Other sources of force and torque may also be included. In LBM- IBB simulations, the hydrodynamic force and torque are computed from the amount of momentum/angular momentum exchanges. On the other hand, in LBM-IBM simulations, since the solid object is also lled with uid, the uid inertia inside the solid object appears in the momentum/angular momentum balances as I Z Z ~ ~n ds = ~udV fdV; (21a) dt @s @V @V I Z Z ~ ~ ~r ~ ~n ds = (~r ~u) dV ~r f dV: (21b) dt @s @V @V where @S and @V are the surface and volume of a solid object. When cal- culating the hydrodynamic force/torque, the treatment of the uid inertia inside the particle clearly plays an important role. A straightforward treat- ment is to assume the uid inside the solid object is following rigid body motion, as did by Uhlmann [6]. With such assumption, Eq. (20) becomes d~v ~ ~ ( ) V = fdV + ( ) V ~g + F + ; (22a) p f p p f p int dt @V d!~ ~ ~ I 1 = ~r f dV + T + : (22b) p int dt @V An obvious problem of Eq. (22) is that the left-hand sides vanish when . When the density ratio = is below a limit, the simulations p f p f employing Eq. (22) are not stable. To overcome such stability de ciency, Feng & Michaelides [47] proposed a speci c time discretization of Eq. (22) as n+1 n n n 1 ~v ~v ~v ~v ~ ~ V = V fdV + ( ) V ~g + F + ; p p f p p f p int t t @V (23a) n+1 n n n 1 !~ !~ !~ !~ ~ ~ I = I ~r f dV + T + : (23b) p p int t t @V Alternatively, one can directly compute the uid inertia inside the solid object to avoid singularity when the density ratio is close to unity. Kempe 26 et al. [48] used a level set functions to compute such terms as Z n n y n x z XXX ~udV = ~u h ; i;j;k i;j;k @V 1 1 1 (24) Z n n n x z XXX ~r ~udV = ~r ~u h ; i;j;k i;j;k i;j;k @V 1 1 1 where H ( ) l l l=1 = P ; (25) i;j;k k k l=1 is a signed distance function, 2 2 2 (~x ~x ) (~y ~y ) (~z ~z ) i;j;k c i;j;k c i;j;k c = + + 1 (26) 2 2 2 a b c where (~x ;~y ;~z ) is the center location of a particle, a, b, c are the lengths c c c of the three axes of an ellipsoidal shaped particle. Apparently, one should obtain > 0 outside and < 0 inside the particle, H ( ) is the Heaviside l l l function. The summation is over the 8 corners of a three-dimensional grid cell, or 4 corners of a two-dimensional grid cell. In the following test, both Eq. (23) and Eq. (24) will be examined in the LBM-IBM simulations of moving particles in viscous ows. The benchmark case chosen here is a cylinder settling in a vertical channel. A sketch of the ow is shown in Fig. 11. The parameters in physical units are 2 2 chosen as D = 0:1cm, L = 4cm, H = 0:4cm, a = 0:324cm, g = 980cm =s , and the density ratio = = 1:03 to match the arbitrary Lagrangian Eule- p f rian (ALE) simulation performed by Hu et al. [49]. First, the two ways of considering the inertia of uid inside the cylinder, i.e., Eq. (23) and Eq. (24) are compared in the LBM-IBM simulations. Eq. (22) is not included as it results in instability with the current density ratio. The trajectory, angular velocity, vertical and horizontal translational velocities of the cylinder are presented in Fig. 12(a), 12(b), 12(c), and 12(d), respectively. The results are obtained with a grid resolution of D = 30x. The results are not sensitive to how the inertia of the uid in the cylinder is treated. Assuming the uid in- side the two-dimensional cylinder follows the rigid body motion appears to be safe. Compared to Uhlmann's IBM with zero retraction distance, Breugem's 27 Figure 11: A sketch of a cylinder settling in a quiescent ow. IBM with a retraction distance of r = 0:4x clearly improves the accu- racy of simulating the particle motion. Particularly, the terminal velocity of the cylinder with Uhlmann's IBM is obviously smaller than the benchmark result. This is because the di used uid-solid interface creates a larger ef- fective hydraulic radius that over predicts the drag force. The retraction of Lagrangian grid points helps to o set such over prediction [7]. We next compare the performance of LBM-IBB and LBM-IBM in simu- lating the particle motion. The verticel velocity of the cylinder with Bouzidi et al.'s interpolated bounce-back scheme, and Breugem (2012)'s IBM with a retraction distance of 0:4x are presented in Fig. 13(a) and 13(b), respec- tively. Here we simulate the same ow with di erent grid resolutions from D = 10x to D = 45x. The results of LBM-IBB simulation almost converge at the grid resolution of D = 10x, while the results of LBM-IBM simula- tion reach the same accuracy from the grid resolution of D = 15x. This is mainly due to the advantage of the second-order accuracy in IBB compared to the rst-order accuracy in IBM. Assuming the ALE benchmark results are accurate, the grid-independent numerical error of the LBM-IBB simulation is slightly larger than that of the LBM-IBM. This bene t is likely brought by the adjustable retraction distance r in the latter. 28 (b) (a) x / L t ( sec ) (c) (d) t ( sec ) t ( sec ) Figure 12: The e ects of treatment of inertia of uid inside cylinder on (a) particle trajec- tory, (b) particle angular velocity, (c) vertical translational velocity, (d) horizontal trans- lational velocity. u ( m/s ) y / L u ( m/s ) ω ( rad ) (a) (b) t ( sec ) t ( sec ) Figure 13: The results of particle vertical translational velocity with di erent grid resolu- tions, (a) LBM-IBM with Breugem (2012)'s IBM, r = 0:4x, (b) LBM-IBB with Bouzidi et al.'s quadratic interpolated bounce-back scheme. u ( m/s ) u ( m/s ) x At the end of this case, the level of \grid locking" in the hydrodynamic force/torque evaluations is examined. The \grid locking" means when a solid object crosses over the grid mesh, the calculated instantaneous hydro- dynamic force/torque exerted on the solid object have a slight dependence on the con guration of the grid mesh and the solid object, and not being strictly Galilean invariant [7]. The calculated instantaneous force and torque therefore present a high-frequency uctuation which restores its initial value when the solid object displaces exactly one grid spacing. The term \grid locking" was dubbed by Breugem but the phenomenon was discovered much earlier in IBM, e.g., in [6, 50]. The LBM-IBB simulations also su er from the same problem, as discussed by Lallemand & Luo [51], Peng et al. [39] and Tao et al. [40]. Essentially, both the interpolation in IBB and the bound- ary di usion in IBM have made the realization of no-slip condition on the sharp interface depending on the information of multiple grid points around, which helps to suppress the uctuation in force and torque evaluation. In Fig. 14(a) the e ects of the two schemes, i.e., Feng & Michaelides's scheme (Eq. (23)) and Kempe et al.'s scheme (Eq. (24)), for treating the uid in- ertia inside the solid volume in IBM are compared. At the initial stage, the scheme of Feng & Michaelides presents a lower level of force uctua- tion that the scheme of Kempe et al., but the two schemes eventually lead to the same prediction of the force, as shown in the inserted zoom-in plot in Fig. 14(a). Fig. 14(b) shows the comparison of force evaluation among four simulations, two LBM-IBB simulations with the quadratic interpolation scheme of Bouzidi et al.(Eq. (11)) and the single-node bounce-back scheme of Zhao & Yong (Eq. (16)), and two LBM-IBM simulations with Uhlmann's IBM and Breugem's IBM with a retraction distance of r = 0:4x. The two LBM-IBM simulations use Kempe et al.'s scheme to directly consider the in- ertia of uid inside particle region. Compared to the IBB schemes, the IBM results clearly better suppress the force uctuation. This bene t is a result that the delta-functions employed in IBM di use the sharp interface more in IBM than in the interpolation schemes used in IBB. In IBM, the force contributed from a single Lagrangian node depends the information from a maximum 4 4 (in 2D) subdomain of the Eulerian mesh. On the contrary, in IBB, the force contributed by a single boundary link depends on the in- formation from no more than three node points. The latter system therefore has a much less inertia to suppress the high-frequency uctuations. The force uctuation in an IBM simulation might be further suppressed by using more di usive delta-functions with larger spans, as suggested in Ref. [50]. 31 However, those more di usive delta-functions will introduce larger numerical viscosity and further reduce the accuracy of the IBM simulation in terms of averaged quantities. If the instantaneous force/torque computation is not of particular importance and the simulation has sucient numerical stabil- ity, less di usive delta-functions should be recommended. We notice that many nite-volume based IBM studies (e.g., Ref. [6, 7]) recommended the three-point delta-function by Roma et al. [43], perhaps due to the balance between its ability to suppress the force uctuation and acceptable boundary di usion. In our LBM based IBM simulations, however, we found the use of three-point delta-function leads to larger vulnerability for numerical insta- bility (see Sec. 3.1). We therefore recommend the four-point delta-function by Peskin [5] instead. Another source for the larger uctuation in IBB is due to the requirement that the distribution functions at a new grid point when it is uncovered by the cylinder need to be initialized (known as \re lling"), since no distribu- tion function is assigned to nodes inside the solid region when IBB is used. Proper re lling schemes may reduce uctuation but its contribution cannot be removed [39]. The LBM-IBM, on the other hand, avoids the re lling process, as the whole computational domain is lled with uid and assigned with distribution functions. 3.3. Transient laminar pipe ow We now move to discuss results for two three-dimensional problems, with the purpose to further support the remarks that have been made using the two-dimensional ows discussed above. The rst 3D ow is the transient laminar pipe ow. Strictly speaking, this ow is a two-dimensional ow, but is run on three-dimensional Cartesian grids. Under a constant driving force, the ow that is initially static in a circular pipe accelerates and reaches a steady state. The governing equation of this axi-symmetric ow reads as @u 1 @ @u z z = r + g; (27) @t r @r @r where u is the streamwise velocity in a cylindrical coordinate system (r; ; z), g is the constant body force driving the ow. Applying periodic boundary condition in the streamwise direction and no-slip condition on the pipe wall, the above governing equation can be solved theoretically to obtain as [52] " # 2 2 r 8J ( r=R) t 0 n u (r; t) = u 1 exp ; (28) z 0 2 3 2 R J ( ) R 1 n n=1 32 (a) (b) t ( sec ) t ( sec ) Figure 14: The horizontal component of the hydrodynamic force acting on the particle, D = 30, (a) the e ects of treatments on the inertia of uid inside the solid region, (b) the comparison between LBM-IBB and LBM-IBM. F ( dyn ) F ( dyn ) y 2 where u = gR =4 is the centerline velocity at the steady state, J and J 0 0 1 are the Bessel function of the rst kind J for integer orders = 0 and = 1, is the nth root for J . n 0 First, the velocity contours and pro les at the steady state with (a) Zhao & Yong's bounce-back, (b) Breugem's IBM with R = 0:4, where the driving body force is applied only to the uid domain, (c) same as (b) but the driving body force is applied to the whole computational domain are shown in Fig. 15. The Reynolds number of the ow Re = 2u R= is 100, the radius of the pipe R = 30x. The pipe is contained in a computational domain of n n n = 72 72 16. While the velocity pro les with Zhao & x y z Yong's bounce-back collapse well with the theoretical solutions at di erent times, those pro les with Breugem's IBM have slight visible deviations from the theory at later times. Comparing the velocity pro les in case (b) and case (c), we observe that applying the driving force in the ctitious uid domain (physical domain occupied by solid phase) leads to larger derivation than restricting the driving force in the physical uid domain. These again suggests that how to appropriately treat the ow in the ctitious domain a ects the accuracy of ow in the physical uid domain, as the two parts can directly exchange information via advection and di usion through the N-S equations. In order to better quantify the numerical errors in the laminar pipe ow simulations, the convergence rates of the L1 and L2 norms of the steady state velocity errors are calculated and presented in Fig. 16. Here we ex- amine six boundary treatment schemes, the linear interpolated bounce-back schemes of Bouzidi et al. and Yu et al., Zhao & Yong's bounce-back scheme, Uhlmann's IBM, Breugem's IBM with retraction distance of R = 0:3x and 0:4x. The boundary force in three simulations with IBMs are iterated for 5 times. Similar to the case of circular Couette ow, the numerical errors in the three cases with IBM generally have rst-order convergence rate, in contrast to the second-order convergence rates in the three bounce-back cases. While retracting the Lagrangian grid to the solid side signi cantly reduces the mag- nitude of the numerical error, the convergence rate is only slightly improved, i.e., from 1.0 to 1.2 with the retraction distance of R = 0:4x. According to our earlier derivation in Sec. 3.1, as long as the actual boundary is di used more than the retraction distance by the delta-function, the error induced by the interpolation should always involve the ow in both the uid and solid regions. Therefore, the improved order of accuracy claimed in previous IBM studies, e.g., in [7], remains questionable or at least not generalizable, as we 34 (a) (c) (e) r / R r / R r / R (b) (d) (f) n n n x x x Figure 15: The velocity contours and pro les of a laminar pipe ow at its steady state: (a) and (d), with Zhao & Yong's bounce-back; (b) and (e), with Breugem's IBM with a retraction distance of R = 0:4, the driving force only applied to the uid region, (c) and (f ), same as (b) and (e), but the driving force applied to the whole computational domain. u / u y 0 u / u y 0 u / u y 1.0 1.2 2.0 (R −R )/δx 1 2 Figure 16: The convergence rates of the velocity in a laminar pipe ow. are unable to reproduce the second-order accuracy with the LBM-IBM here. 3.4. Uniform ow passing a xed sphere The last case we examine is a uniform stream passing a xed sphere in an unbounded domain. A spherical particle with a diameter D is xed at (x; y; z) = (6D; 6D; 6D) in a cuboid domain of a size (Lx; Ly; Lz) = (24D; 12D; 12D). A uniform unidirectional upstream ow with ~u = (u ; u ; u ) = x y z (U ; 0; 0) enters the inlet (x = 0) of the domain and passes over the xed parti- cle. The four sides are set to be stress-free, i.e., u = 0; @u =@z = @u =@z = 0 z x y at z = 0 and z = Lz, and u = 0; @u =@y = @u =@y = 0 at y = 0 and y x z y = Ly, to mimic the boundary condition in an in nitely large domain. The ow exits the domain with the following out ow boundary condition, @( ~u)=@t + U @( ~u)=@x = 0, where U is the streamwise velocity at the 0 o 0 o outlet [53]. The drag coecients under three di erent particle Reynolds numbers, Re = U D= = 20, 50, and 150 are examined. With these Reynolds num- p i bers, the ow after the sphere is steady and axisymmetric with closed re- circulating wake [54]. At each Reynolds number, we vary the grid resolu- tion, i.e., D=x from 8 to 48, and investigate the drag coecient C = 2 2 8F =( Re ), with kinematic viscosity xed when varying the grid res- D f L2 olution. The results of drag coecient at Re = 20, 50, and 150 are presented in Fig. 17, Fig. 18, and Fig. 19, respectively. The vertical solid lines in each gure indicate the grid resolution gives an error of 1% using the result of the current boundary treatment with the highest grid resolution as benchmark. At all three Reynolds numbers, Zhao & Yong's bounce-back scheme always reaches the converged drag coecient with the coarsest grid resolution among all four boundary treatments. This is perhaps due to the fact that Zhao & Yong's bounce-back scheme has a second-order accuracy while the immersed boundary algorithms only have rst-order accuracy. The retraction of La- grangian grid points again results in much more accurate results compared to zero retraction distance. R = 0:4x always appears to be the optimal re- traction distance when the four-point delta-function is employed. According to our results, We recommend that Breugem's Lagrangian grid retraction be used when IBM is used for no-slip boundary treatment. Finally, if we de ne a \sucient" grid resolution as the grid resolution that gives 1% relative error from the converged result, the sucient grid resolutions for Zhao & Yong's bounce-back at Re = 20, 50, and 150 are about Dx = 14:3, 16:7 and 15:9. The same quantities are 37:1, 38:0, 36:3 with Uhlmann's IBM, 29:5, 30:7, 25:0 with Breugem's IBM with R = 0:3x, and 25:0, 26:3, 20:8 with Breguem's IBM with R = 0:4x. These results may provide a criterion to assess whether a grid resolution is ne enough to ensure trustworthy results when a certain scheme is adopted for no-slip boundary treatment in a three-dimensional particle-laden ow simulation, at the similar particle Reynolds number. 4. Conclusions and remarks In this work, we systematically assessed two categories of no-slip bound- ary treatment methods, which are the interpolated bounce-back schemes and the immersed boundary method, on an arbitrarily shaped surface in the con- text of the lattice Boltzmann method. Three representative interpolated bounce-back schemes, including a recently proposed single-node second-order bounce-back scheme [22], and two popular immersed boundary algorithms are selected. Their performances, especially the accuracy of resulting veloc- ity, hydrodynamic force/torque, and the viscous dissipation rate are carefully benchmarked in four selected ows. In all the ows examined in the present study, the interpolated bounce-back schemes always lead to much more accu- rate results of velocity, force/torque, and dissipation rate than the immersed 37 (a) (b) 1.89 2.09 2.23 2.02 D / δx D / δx Figure 17: The drag coecients of a uniform ow passing a xed sphere at Re = 20. (a) (b) 1.91 2.12 2.25 2.58 D / δx D / δx Figure 18: The drag coecients of a uniform ow passing a xed sphere at Re = 50. C C D D (a) (b) 1.96 1.94 2.83 2.92 D / δx D / δx Figure 19: The drag coecients of a uniform ow passing a xed sphere at Re = 150. boundary algorithms. The immersed boundary algorithms, on the other hand, outperform in suppressing the uctuations of the calculated hydrody- namic force/torque compared to the interpolated bounce-back schemes. The speci c major observations of this present study are summarized as follows. With immersed boundary algorithms, cautions should be taken to the treatment of the ow in the virtual uid region, especially when the ow of interest is surrounded by solid objects, such as the Taylor-Couette ow and the circular pipe ow. Unfortunately, the information of how to specify the ow in the virtual uid region may not be available in the description of physical problems. Our simulations con rm that the immersed boundary algorithms using the regularized delta-functions to interpolate information between the Eulerian and Lagrangian grids have only the rst-order accuracy in ow velocity calculation. This conclusion holds no matter whether the Lagrangian grid points are retracted towards the solid phase or not. We prove with a theoretical analysis that information exchange between the Eulerian and Lagrangian grids via the regularized delta- function always induces an rst-order error term as long as the velocity gradient is discontinuous across the solid- uid interface. On the other D hand, the interpolated bounce-back schemes can ensure a second-order accuracy of the simulated velocity. The magnitudes of the velocity errors in the interpolated bounce-back schemes are also much smaller than their counterparts from immersed boundary algorithms. The local hydrodynamic force and torque calculated with immersed boundary algorithms are only rst-order accurate. These local rst- order errors may cancel out to result in an apparent second-order accu- rate integral force/torque, as shown in Sec. 3.4. However, this cancel- lation may not be generalized. In the Taylor-Couette ow, the integral force is still rst-order accurate. The forces calculated with interpo- lated bounce-back schemes and momentum exchange methods have a second-order accuracy in all the ows examined. The most serious problem we nd for the immersed boundary method is that the local dissipation rate can be signi cantly underestimated. This is because the sharp uid-solid interface is di used by the reg- ularized delta-functions, which results in a smaller velocity gradient near the interface. The same problem is not present with the interpo- lated bounce-back schemes, which can be viewed as a sharp-interface treatment for no-slip boundary. For moving particle problems, the high-frequency uctuations in the force/torque are better suppressed in the immersed boundary methods than the interpolated bounce-back schemes. When the particle/ uid density ratio is close to unity, both Feng & Michaelides's scheme and Kempe et al.'s scheme are suitable to update the particle motion. We present convergence studies to nd out the sucient grid resolution associated with each boundary treatment method for 2D circular and 3D spherical particles. Since the interpolated bounce-back schemes have better accuracy than the immersed boundary method, its grid resolution requirement for a converged result is lower. For 2D circular particles, the sucient grid resolutions for using interpolated bounce- back schemes and the immersed boundary method are D=x = 10 and D=x = 15, respectively. For 3D spherical particles, the sucient grid resolutions become D=x = 15 and D=x = 25, respectively, for parti- cle Reynolds number between 20 to 150. Here the immersed boundary 40 method refers to Breugem's IBM with an appropriate retraction dis- tance. When Uhlmann's IBM with zero retraction distance is used, the sucient grid resolution should be doubled. Acknowledgements: This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (91852205 & 91741101), and by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants CNS1513031 and CBET- 1706130. Computing resources are provided by Center for Computational Science and Engineering of Southern University of Science and Technology and by National Center for Atmospheric Research through CISL-P35751014, and CISL-UDEL0001. 5. Appendix A: Analytic solution of the Taylor-Couette ow The analytic solution of the transient Taylor-Couette ow was derived by He [41]. Here we just repeat He's derivation for readers' convenience. The simpli ed N-S equations for the Taylor-Couette ow is written as @u @ 1 @ = (ru ) ; @t @r r @r (29) u (t; R ) = R ; u (t; R ) = R ; u (t = 0; r) = 0; 1 1 1 2 2 2 where u is the ow velocity in the angular direction, is the kinematic viscosity of the uid, t and r are the time and radius coordinate, respectively. R and R are the radius of the inner and outer cylinders con ning the ow, 1 2 and are the corresponding angular velocities, respectively. The time- 1 2 dependent solution of this ow can be expressed as [41]: 1 2 r J ( ) r n 1 n n (R R ) 2 1 u (r; t) = u + A e J Y (30) n 1 1 R Y ( ) R 1 1 n 1 n=1 where u is the steady state solution 2 2 1 2 2 1 S 2 1 u = + r; (31) 2 2 2 2 r R R R R 2 1 1 2 J and Y are the rst-order Bessel function of the rst and the second kind, 1 1 is the nth root satis es J ( ) Y ( ) J ( ) Y ( ) = 0; 1 n 1 n 1 n 1 n (32) 0 < < < < < < ! 1: 1 2 3 n 41 where = R =R is the radii ratio between the outer and the inner cylinder. 2 1 The nth coecient of the series A is h i J ( ) r r 1 n r S n n u J Y dr 1 1 1 R R Y ( ) R top 1 1 1 n 1 A = = : (33) n h i J ( ) bottom r r 1 n r n n J Y dr 1 1 1 R R Y ( ) R 1 1 1 n 1 The integrals in Eq. (33) can be calculated as top = [c J ( ) 2c J ( ) + c J ( ) + 2 c Y ( ) 2 0 n n 1 1 n 1 0 n n 1 1 n c Y ( ) c Y ( ) c J ( ) + 2c J ( ) 1 0 n n 2 0 n n 2 0 n n 1 1 n 2 2 c J ( ) 2 c Y ( ) + c Y ( ) + c Y ( ) 1 0 n n 1 1 n 1 0 n n 2 0 n n (34a) 2 2 bottom = [J ( )] 2J ( ) J ( ) + [J ( )] n 1 n 0 n 1 n 0 n n 2 J ( ) Y ( ) + 2 Y ( ) J ( ) 2 Y ( ) J ( ) 1 n 1 n n 0 n 1 n 0 n 0 n n 2 2 + 2 J ( ) Y ( ) + [Y ( )] 2 Y ( ) Y ( ) 0 n 1 n 1 n n 0 n 1 n 2 2 2 2 + [Y ( )] [J ( )] + 2 J ( ) J ( ) 0 n n 1 n n 0 n 1 n 2 2 [J ( )] + 2 J ( ) Y ( ) 2 Y ( ) J ( ) 0 n n 1 n 1 n n 0 n 1 n 2 2 2 + 2 Y ( ) J ( ) 2 J ( ) Y ( ) [Y ( )] 0 n 0 n n 0 n 1 n 1 n n 2 2 2 2 Y ( ) Y ( ) [Y ( )] 0 n 1 n 0 n n (34b) where R J ( ) 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 n c = ; c = ; = : (35) 1 2 2 2 1 1 Y ( ) 1 n 6. Appendix B: a theoretical examination on the order of accuracy of immersed boundary method A con guration of Lagrangian-Eulerian grid system for a one-dimensional uid-solid interface is sketched in Fig. 20, where x and x are two Eulerian 1 2 42 Solid Fluid ∂u ∂x fluid ∂u X x ∂x solid u =U Figure 20: The grid arrangement at a uid-solid interface. grid points on the uid side and the solid side of the Lagrangian grid point X . The interpolation of unforced velocity from the Eulerian grid to the Lagrangian grid and the redistribution of the boundary force the other way around take place at x , x , and X . Let us assume the velocity eld prior to 1 2 applying the boundary forcing is accurate, i.e., ~u (x ) = ~u (x ) ; ~u (x ) = ~u (x ) : (36) 1 exact 1 2 exact 2 The boundary force on the Lagrangian point F (X ) would be h i h i ~ ~ ~ F (X ) t = U (X ) ~u (X ) = U (X ) ~u (x ) ~u (x ) ; 1 exact 1 2 exact 2 (37) where = (x X ) and = (x X ) are the weighting factors ob- 1 1 2 2 tained from the delta-function, + = 1. The boundary forces distributed 1 2 back to x and x are 1 2 h i ~ ~ ~ F (x ) t = F (X ) t = U (X ) ~u (x ) ~u (x ) ; (38a) 1 1 1 1 exact 1 2 exact 2 h i ~ ~ ~ F (x ) t = F (X ) t = U (X ) ~u (x ) ~u (x ) ; 2 2 2 1 exact 1 2 exact 2 (38b) After applying the boundary forcing, the velocity at x and x are 1 2 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~u (x ) = ~u (x ) + F (x ) t; ~u (x ) = ~u (x ) + F (x ) t: (39) 1 exact 1 1 2 exact 2 2 43 Since the velocity eld before applying the boundary forcing is already exact, the errors introduced by the boundary force at x and x are simply 1 2 h i ~u = ~u (x ) ~u (x ) = U (X ) ~u (x ) ~u (x ) ; 1 1 exact 1 1 1 exact 1 2 exact 2 (40a) h i ~u = ~u (x ) ~u (x ) = U (X ) ~u (x ) ~u (x ) : 2 2 exact 2 2 1 exact 1 2 exact 2 (40b) Performing a Taylor expansion for ~u (x ) and ~u (x ) with respect to exact 1 exact 2 X , i.e., d~u ~u (x ) = U (X ) + j (x X ) + O x ; exact 1 fluid 1 dx (41) d~u ~u (x ) = U (X ) + j (x X ) + O x ; exact 2 solid 2 dx Substitute Eq. (41) to Eq. (40), we shall obtain d~u d~u 2 2 ~u = j (x X ) + O x j (x X ) + O x ; 1 1 1 fluid 1 2 solid 2 dx dx d~u d~u 2 2 ~u = j (x X ) + O x j (x X ) + O x : 2 2 1 fluid 1 2 solid 2 dx dx (42) Note that the delta-function should have the property (x X ) (x X ) = 0 (The 4-point cosine delta-function employed frequently does not possess this property strictly, but it does not a ect the argument, i.e., (x X ) + 1 1 (x X ) = 0. To simplify the notation, denote (x X ) = c, (x X ) = 2 2 1 1 2 2 c, c O(x), Eq. (42) becomes d~u d~u d~u d~u 2 2 ~u = c j j +O x ; ~u = c j j +O x : 1 1 fluid solid 2 2 fluid solid dx dx dx dx (43) Therefore, only when the velocity gradient is continuous, according to the Taylor expansion d~u d~u j = j +O (x) ; (44) solid fluid dx dx ~u and ~u in Eq. (43) can then have a second-order accuracy. When the 1 2 velocity gradient is discontinuous, the boundary forcing process shown above 44 always induces a rst-order error to the velocity eld. Generally speaking, the velocity gradient is, unfortunately, not continuous across a uid-solid interface, thus IBM using the delta-function degrades the accuracy to the rst-order. In IBM, The hydrodynamic force F on a solid object is calculated as ~ ~ Ft = F (X ) tV ; (45) l l where X is the location of the lth Lagrangian grid point, V is the control l l volume of X . Similarly, we can de ne the exact hydrodynamic force as ~ ~ F t = F (X ) tV ; (46) exact exact l l The error of hydrodynamic force in IBM is simply the di erence between the two, i.e., h i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ft = Ft F t = F (X ) F (X ) tV exact l exact l l nh i h io ~ ~ = U (X ) ~u (x ) ~u (x ) U (X ) ~u (x ) ~u (x ) V l 1 1 2 2 l 1 exact 1 2 exact 2 l = [ ~u (x ) + ~u (x )] V : 1 1 2 2 l (47) Substituting ~u (x ) and ~u (x ) obtained in Eq. (43) results in 1 2 d~u d~u 2 2 2 Ft = c + c j j + O x V ; fluid solid l (48) 1 2 dx dx 2 2 where c + c is always positive (or negative) and on the order of x. 1 2 Evidently, for the local rst-order error in Eq. (48) to cancel out in the summation, the di erence of the velocity derivatives across the uid-solid interface must be follow certain patterns, or at least being positive on some Lagrangian nodes and being negative on the others. While we do observe this situation in the case of a uniform ow passing a xed sphere, which has also been reported in the literature [18, 7, 21], this observation may not be generalized. In the case of Taylor-Couette ow, the hydrodynamic force calculation with IBM is only rst-order accurate. 45 References [1] C. Pan, L.-S. Luo, C. T. Miller, An evaluation of lattice boltzmann schemes for porous medium ow simulation, Computers & uids 35 (8- 9) (2006) 898{909. [2] F.-B. Tian, H. Luo, L. Zhu, J. C. Liao, X.-Y. Lu, An ecient immersed boundary-lattice boltzmann method for the hydrodynamic interaction of elastic laments, Journal of computational physics 230 (19) (2011) 7266{7283. [3] L.-P. Wang, C. Peng, Z. Guo, Z. Yu, Lattice Boltzmann simulation of particle-laden turbulent channel ow, Computers & Fluids 124 (2016) 226{236. [4] A. Eshghinejadfard, A. Abdelsamie, S. A. Hosseini, D. Th evenin, Im- mersed boundary lattice boltzmann simulation of turbulent channel ows in the presence of spherical particles, International Journal of Mul- tiphase Flow 96 (2017) 161{172. [5] C. S. Peskin, The immersed boundary method, Acta Numerica 11 (2002) 479{517. [6] M. Uhlmann, An immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of particulate ows, Journal of Computational Physics 209 (2) (2005) 448{476. [7] W.-P. Breugem, A second-order accurate immersed boundary method for fully resolved simulations of particle-laden ows, Journal of Compu- tational Physics 231 (13) (2012) 4469{4498. [8] Z.-G. Feng, E. E. Michaelides, Proteus: a direct forcing method in the simulations of particulate ows, Journal of Computational Physics 202 (1) (2005) 20{51. [9] J. Wu, C. Shu, Implicit velocity correction-based immersed boundary- lattice boltzmann method and its applications, Journal of Computa- tional Physics 228 (6) (2009) 1963{1979. [10] D. Goldstein, R. Handler, L. Sirovich, Modeling a no-slip ow boundary with an external force eld, Journal of Computational Physics 105 (2) (1993) 354{366. 46 [11] E. Fadlun, R. Verzicco, P. Orlandi, J. Mohd-Yusof, Combined immersed- boundary nite-di erence methods for three-dimensional complex ow simulations, Journal of computational physics 161 (1) (2000) 35{60. [12] A. J. C. Ladd, Numerical simulations of particulate suspensions via a discretized Boltzmann equation. part 1. Theoretical foundation, Journal of uid mechanics 271 (1) (1994) 285{309. [13] M. Bouzidi, M. Firdaouss, P. Lallemand, Momentum transfer of a Boltzmann-lattice uid with boundaries, Physics of uids 13 (11) (2001) 3452{3459. [14] R. Mei, W. Shyy, D. Yu, L.-S. Luo, Lattice Boltzmann method for 3-D ows with curved boundary, Journal of Computational Physics 161 (2) (2000) 680{699. [15] Z. Guo, C. Zheng, B. Shi, An extrapolation method for boundary con- ditions in lattice Boltzmann method, Physics of Fluids 14 (6) (2002) 2007{2010. [16] D. Yu, R. Mei, L.-S. Luo, W. Shyy, Viscous ow computations with the method of lattice Boltzmann equation, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (5) (2003) 329{367. [17] I. Ginzburg, D. dHumi eres, Multire ection boundary conditions for lat- tice Boltzmann models, Physical Review E 68 (6) (2003) 066614. [18] Y. Peng, L.-S. Luo, A comparative study of immersed-boundary and interpolated bounce-back methods in LBE, Progress in Computational Fluid Dynamics, an International Journal 8 (1-4) (2008) 156{167. [19] L. Chen, Y. Yu, J. Lu, G. Hou, A comparative study of lattice Boltz- mann methods using bounce-back schemes and immersed boundary ones for ow acoustic problems, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 74 (6) (2014) 439{467. [20] S. K. Kang, Y. A. Hassan, A comparative study of direct-forcing im- mersed boundary-lattice Boltzmann methods for stationary complex boundaries, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 66 (9) (2011) 1132{1158. 47 [21] Q. Zhou, L.-S. Fan, A second-order accurate immersed boundary-lattice boltzmann method for particle-laden ows, Journal of Computational Physics 268 (2014) 269{301. [22] W. Zhao, W.-A. Yong, Single-node second-order boundary schemes for the lattice Boltzmann method, Journal of Computational Physics 329 (6) (2017) 1{15. [23] M. Uhlmann, Interface-resolved direct numerical simulation of vertical particulate channel ow in the turbulent regime, Physics of Fluids 20 (5) (2008) 053305. [24] F. Picano, W.-P. Breugem, L. Brandt, Turbulent channel ow of dense suspensions of neutrally buoyant spheres, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 764 (2015) 463{487. [25] C. Peng, Study of turbulence modulation by nite-size solid particles with the lattice boltzmann method, Ph.d. dissertation, the University of Delaware (2018). [26] Z. Guo, C. Shu, Lattice Boltzmann method and its applications in en- gineering, Vol. 3, World Scienti c, 2013. [27] P. Lallemand, L.-S. Luo, Theory of the lattice Boltzmann method: Dis- persion, dissipation, isotropy, Galilean invariance, and stability, Physical Review E 61 (6) (2000) 6546. [28] Z. Guo, C. Zheng, B. Shi, Discrete lattice e ects on the forcing term in the lattice Boltzmann method, Physical Review E 65 (4) (2002) 046308. [29] Z.-G. Feng, E. E. Michaelides, The immersed boundary-lattice Boltz- mann method for solving uid{particles interaction problems, Journal of Computational Physics 195 (2) (2004) 602{628. [30] X. Niu, C. Shu, Y. Chew, Y. Peng, A momentum exchange-based im- mersed boundary-lattice boltzmann method for simulating incompress- ible viscous ows, Physics Letters A 354 (3) (2006) 173{182. [31] A. Dupuis, P. Chatelain, P. Koumoutsakos, An immersed boundary{ lattice-boltzmann method for the simulation of the ow past an impul- sively started cylinder, Journal of Computational Physics 227 (9) (2008) 4486{4498. 48 [32] C. Zhang, Y. Cheng, L. Zhu, J. Wu, Accuracy improvement of the im- mersed boundary{lattice boltzmann coupling scheme by iterative force correction, Computers & Fluids 124 (2016) 246{260. [33] Y. Cheng, J. Li, Introducing unsteady non-uniform source terms into the lattice boltzmann model, International journal for numerical methods in uids 56 (6) (2008) 629{641. [34] H. Min, C. Peng, Z. Guo, L.-P. Wang, An inverse design analysis of mesoscopic implementation of non-uniform forcing in mrt lattice boltz- mann models, Computers & Mathematics with Applications. [35] S. Tao, Q. He, B. Chen, X. Yang, S. Huang, One-point second-order curved boundary condition for lattice boltzmann simulation of sus- pended particles, Computers & Mathematics with Applications. [36] R. Mei, D. Yu, W. Shyy, L.-S. Luo, Force evaluation in the lattice Boltzmann method involving curved geometry, Physical Review E 65 (4) (2002) 041203. [37] B. Wen, C. Zhang, Y. Tu, C. Wang, H. Fang, Galilean invariant uid{ solid interfacial dynamics in lattice Boltzmann simulations, Journal of Computational Physics 266 (2014) 161{170. [38] C. Peng, N. Geneva, Z. Guo, L.-P. Wang, Issues associated with Galilean invariance on a moving solid boundary in the lattice Boltzmann method, Physical Review E 95 (1) (2017) 013301. [39] C. Peng, Y. Teng, B. Hwang, Z. Guo, L.-P. Wang, Implementation is- sues and benchmarking of lattice Boltzmann method for moving rigid particle simulations in a viscous ow, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 72 (2) (2016) 349{374. [40] S. Tao, J. Hu, Z. Guo, An investigation on momentum exchange methods and re lling algorithms for lattice Boltzmann simulation of particulate ows, Computers & Fluids 133 (2016) 1{14. [41] Z. He, High order smoothed particle hydrodynamic methods for slightly compressible bounded ow, Ph.d. dissertation, the University of Delaware (2015). 49 [42] M.-C. Lai, Z. Li, A remark on jump conditions for the three-dimensional navier-stokes equations involving an immersed moving membrane, Ap- plied mathematics letters 14 (2) (2001) 149{154. [43] A. M. Roma, C. S. Peskin, M. J. Berger, An adaptive version of the immersed boundary method, Journal of computational physics 153 (2) (1999) 509{534. [44] H. Tennekes, J. L. Lumley, A rst course in turbulence, MIT press, 1972. [45] W.-A. Yong, L.-S. Luo, Accuracy of the viscous stress in the lattice Boltzmann equation with simple boundary conditions, Physical Review E 86 (6) (2012) 065701. [46] C. Peng, Z. Guo, L.-P. Wang, Lattice Boltzmann model capable of meso- scopic vorticity computation, Phys. Rev. E 96 (2017) 053304. [47] Z.-G. Feng, E. E. Michaelides, Robust treatment of no-slip boundary condition and velocity updating for the lattice-boltzmann simulation of particulate ows, Computers & Fluids 38 (2) (2009) 370{381. [48] T. Kempe, J. Fr ohlich, An improved immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of particle laden ows, Journal of Com- putational Physics 231 (9) (2012) 3663{3684. [49] H. H. Hu, N. A. Patankar, M. Zhu, Direct numerical simulations of uid{solid systems using the arbitrary lagrangian{eulerian technique, Journal of Computational Physics 169 (2) (2001) 427{462. [50] X. Yang, X. Zhang, Z. Li, G.-W. He, A smoothing technique for discrete delta functions with application to immersed boundary method in mov- ing boundary simulations, Journal of Computational Physics 228 (20) (2009) 7821{7836. [51] P. Lallemand, L.-S. Luo, Lattice Boltzmann method for moving bound- aries, Journal of Computational Physics 184 (2) (2003) 406{421. [52] L.-P. Wang, M. H. Du, Direct simulation of viscous ow in a wavy pipe using the lattice Boltzmann approach, International Journal of Engi- neering Systems Modelling and Simulation 1 (1) (2008) 20{29. 50 [53] Q. Lou, Z. Guo, B. Shi, Evaluation of out ow boundary conditions for two-phase lattice Boltzmann equation, Physical review E 87 (6) (2013) [54] D. Jones, D. Clarke, Simulation of ow past a sphere using the u- ent code, Tech. rep., DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OR- GANIZATION VICTORIA (AUSTRALIA) MARITIME PLATFORMS DIV (2008).
Journal
Physics – arXiv (Cornell University)
Published: Jun 13, 2019