4.5 Article

The immersed boundary method for confined flows: Numerical diffusion and simulation accuracy of a boundary retraction scheme

Journal

COMPUTERS & FLUIDS
Volume 249, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2022.105690

Keywords

Immersed boundary method; Lattice Boltzmann method; Diffuse-interface; Boundary retraction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diffuse-interface immersed boundary methods have been widely used in complex fluid-structure interaction problems. However, the diffusive effects of the diffuse interface can reduce simulation accuracy, especially in confined geometries. A boundary retraction scheme is proposed to alleviate interface diffusion errors and enhance accuracy.
Diffuse-interface immersed boundary methods (IBM) have been successfully applied to numerous complex fluid-structure interaction problems because of their simple and efficient implementation. Despite their ability to suppress numerical oscillations significantly compared to sharp-interface methods, the diffuse interface is likely to reduce simulation accuracy of the flow field around the solid boundary. The present work investigates the diffusive effects of IBM and the mitigation method for surface-confined particulate flows by comparing results to sharp-interface methods. It is found that increasingly-confined geometries accentuate interface diffusion effects and decrease simulation accuracy. To minimise the diffusive effects of IBM, a boundary retraction scheme is used and its effectiveness is examined, in particular for particles in close contact where the diffuse interfaces overlap. It is shown that this simple implementation is capable of alleviating interface diffusion errors, thus increasing accuracy while limiting computational costs. With an optimal boundary retraction scheme, IBM can successfully capture fluid-structure interactions at different degrees of confinement, comparable to sharp-interface methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available