A comparative study of LBE and DUGKS methods for nearly incompressible flows

Peng Wang, Lianhua Zhu, Zhaoli Guo, Kun Xu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The lattice Boltzmann equation (LBE) methods (both LBGK and MRT) and the discrete unified gas-kinetic scheme (DUGKS) are both derived from the Boltzmann equation, but with different consideration in their algorithm construction. With the same numerical discretization in the particle velocity space, the distinctive modeling of these methods in the update of gas distribution function may introduce differences in the computational results. In order to quantitatively evaluate the performance of these methods in terms of accuracy, stability, and efficiency, in this paper we test LBGK, MRT, and DUGKS in two-dimensional cavity flow and the flow over a square cylinder, respectively. The results for both cases are validated against benchmark solutions. The numerical comparison shows that, with sufficient mesh resolution, the LBE and DUGKS methods yield qualitatively similar results in both test cases. With identical mesh resolutions in both physical and particle velocity space, the LBE methods are more efficient than the DUGKS due to the additional particle collision modeling in DUGKS. But, the DUGKS is more robust and accurate than the LBE methods in most test conditions. Particularly, for the unsteady flow over a square cylinder at Reynolds number 300, with the same mesh resolution it is surprisingly observed that the DUGKS can capture the physical multi-frequency vortex shedding phenomena while the LBGK and MRT fail to get that. Furthermore, the DUGKS is a finite volume method and its computational efficiency can be much improved when a non-uniform mesh in the physical space is adopted. The comparison in this paper clearly demonstrates the progressive improvement of the lattice Boltzmann methods from LBGK, to MRT, up to the current DUGKS, along with the inclusion of more reliable physical process in their algorithm development. Besides presenting the Navier-Stokes solution, the DUGKS can capture the rarefied flow phenomena as well with the increasing of Knudsen number.

LanguageEnglish
Pages657-681
Number of pages25
JournalCommunications in Computational Physics
Volume17
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Mar 2015

Fingerprint

incompressible flow
kinetics
gases
mesh
cavity flow
particle collisions
Knudsen flow
vortex shedding
unsteady flow
finite volume method
Reynolds number
distribution functions
inclusions

Keywords

  • discrete unified gas-kinetic scheme
  • lattice Boltzmann equation
  • numerical performance
  • computational fluid dynamics
  • incompressible flows
  • modeling

Cite this

@article{6626fbab12c6456b8057f43c7ab5969b,
title = "A comparative study of LBE and DUGKS methods for nearly incompressible flows",
abstract = "The lattice Boltzmann equation (LBE) methods (both LBGK and MRT) and the discrete unified gas-kinetic scheme (DUGKS) are both derived from the Boltzmann equation, but with different consideration in their algorithm construction. With the same numerical discretization in the particle velocity space, the distinctive modeling of these methods in the update of gas distribution function may introduce differences in the computational results. In order to quantitatively evaluate the performance of these methods in terms of accuracy, stability, and efficiency, in this paper we test LBGK, MRT, and DUGKS in two-dimensional cavity flow and the flow over a square cylinder, respectively. The results for both cases are validated against benchmark solutions. The numerical comparison shows that, with sufficient mesh resolution, the LBE and DUGKS methods yield qualitatively similar results in both test cases. With identical mesh resolutions in both physical and particle velocity space, the LBE methods are more efficient than the DUGKS due to the additional particle collision modeling in DUGKS. But, the DUGKS is more robust and accurate than the LBE methods in most test conditions. Particularly, for the unsteady flow over a square cylinder at Reynolds number 300, with the same mesh resolution it is surprisingly observed that the DUGKS can capture the physical multi-frequency vortex shedding phenomena while the LBGK and MRT fail to get that. Furthermore, the DUGKS is a finite volume method and its computational efficiency can be much improved when a non-uniform mesh in the physical space is adopted. The comparison in this paper clearly demonstrates the progressive improvement of the lattice Boltzmann methods from LBGK, to MRT, up to the current DUGKS, along with the inclusion of more reliable physical process in their algorithm development. Besides presenting the Navier-Stokes solution, the DUGKS can capture the rarefied flow phenomena as well with the increasing of Knudsen number.",
keywords = "discrete unified gas-kinetic scheme, lattice Boltzmann equation, numerical performance, computational fluid dynamics, incompressible flows, modeling",
author = "Peng Wang and Lianhua Zhu and Zhaoli Guo and Kun Xu",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "24",
doi = "10.4208/cicp.240614.171014a",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "657--681",
journal = "Communications in Computational Physics",
issn = "1815-2406",
publisher = "Global Science Press",
number = "3",

}

A comparative study of LBE and DUGKS methods for nearly incompressible flows. / Wang, Peng; Zhu, Lianhua; Guo, Zhaoli; Xu, Kun.

In: Communications in Computational Physics, Vol. 17, No. 3, 24.03.2015, p. 657-681.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of LBE and DUGKS methods for nearly incompressible flows

AU - Wang, Peng

AU - Zhu, Lianhua

AU - Guo, Zhaoli

AU - Xu, Kun

PY - 2015/3/24

Y1 - 2015/3/24

N2 - The lattice Boltzmann equation (LBE) methods (both LBGK and MRT) and the discrete unified gas-kinetic scheme (DUGKS) are both derived from the Boltzmann equation, but with different consideration in their algorithm construction. With the same numerical discretization in the particle velocity space, the distinctive modeling of these methods in the update of gas distribution function may introduce differences in the computational results. In order to quantitatively evaluate the performance of these methods in terms of accuracy, stability, and efficiency, in this paper we test LBGK, MRT, and DUGKS in two-dimensional cavity flow and the flow over a square cylinder, respectively. The results for both cases are validated against benchmark solutions. The numerical comparison shows that, with sufficient mesh resolution, the LBE and DUGKS methods yield qualitatively similar results in both test cases. With identical mesh resolutions in both physical and particle velocity space, the LBE methods are more efficient than the DUGKS due to the additional particle collision modeling in DUGKS. But, the DUGKS is more robust and accurate than the LBE methods in most test conditions. Particularly, for the unsteady flow over a square cylinder at Reynolds number 300, with the same mesh resolution it is surprisingly observed that the DUGKS can capture the physical multi-frequency vortex shedding phenomena while the LBGK and MRT fail to get that. Furthermore, the DUGKS is a finite volume method and its computational efficiency can be much improved when a non-uniform mesh in the physical space is adopted. The comparison in this paper clearly demonstrates the progressive improvement of the lattice Boltzmann methods from LBGK, to MRT, up to the current DUGKS, along with the inclusion of more reliable physical process in their algorithm development. Besides presenting the Navier-Stokes solution, the DUGKS can capture the rarefied flow phenomena as well with the increasing of Knudsen number.

AB - The lattice Boltzmann equation (LBE) methods (both LBGK and MRT) and the discrete unified gas-kinetic scheme (DUGKS) are both derived from the Boltzmann equation, but with different consideration in their algorithm construction. With the same numerical discretization in the particle velocity space, the distinctive modeling of these methods in the update of gas distribution function may introduce differences in the computational results. In order to quantitatively evaluate the performance of these methods in terms of accuracy, stability, and efficiency, in this paper we test LBGK, MRT, and DUGKS in two-dimensional cavity flow and the flow over a square cylinder, respectively. The results for both cases are validated against benchmark solutions. The numerical comparison shows that, with sufficient mesh resolution, the LBE and DUGKS methods yield qualitatively similar results in both test cases. With identical mesh resolutions in both physical and particle velocity space, the LBE methods are more efficient than the DUGKS due to the additional particle collision modeling in DUGKS. But, the DUGKS is more robust and accurate than the LBE methods in most test conditions. Particularly, for the unsteady flow over a square cylinder at Reynolds number 300, with the same mesh resolution it is surprisingly observed that the DUGKS can capture the physical multi-frequency vortex shedding phenomena while the LBGK and MRT fail to get that. Furthermore, the DUGKS is a finite volume method and its computational efficiency can be much improved when a non-uniform mesh in the physical space is adopted. The comparison in this paper clearly demonstrates the progressive improvement of the lattice Boltzmann methods from LBGK, to MRT, up to the current DUGKS, along with the inclusion of more reliable physical process in their algorithm development. Besides presenting the Navier-Stokes solution, the DUGKS can capture the rarefied flow phenomena as well with the increasing of Knudsen number.

KW - discrete unified gas-kinetic scheme

KW - lattice Boltzmann equation

KW - numerical performance

KW - computational fluid dynamics

KW - incompressible flows

KW - modeling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962429887&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4208/cicp.240614.171014a

DO - 10.4208/cicp.240614.171014a

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 657

EP - 681

JO - Communications in Computational Physics

T2 - Communications in Computational Physics

JF - Communications in Computational Physics

SN - 1815-2406

IS - 3

ER -