4.7 Article

Enhancement of pressure calculation in projection-based particle methods by incorporation of background mesh scheme

期刊

APPLIED OCEAN RESEARCH
卷 86, 期 -, 页码 320-339

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2019.01.017

关键词

Particle methods; Projection-based methods; MPS; Background mesh scheme; Pressure calculation

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC0405403]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51479056]
  3. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Particle methods, or Lagrangian mesh-free methods, are well known as potentially robust computational methods for a wide range of applications in science and engineering, including ocean engineering. Despite their potential robustness, a challenge in the application of particle methods corresponds to the presence of unphysical pressure noise. This study presents a simple and straightforward approach for enhancement of pressure calculation in projection-based particle methods, in the context of MPS (Moving Particle Semi-implicit) method. One of the causes for the presence of unphysical pressure noise in projection-based particle methods corresponds to the use of Eulerian kernels (with a fixed radius of influence or smoothing length) with a purely Lagrangian description of motions in the presence of particle perturbations, leading to spatial discontinuities in the source term of Poisson Pressure Equation (PPE). To enhance continuity, accuracy and smoothness of calculated source term of PPE, a so-called Background Mesh (BM) scheme is proposed to provide spatial connectivity and continuity in between calculated source terms at moving particle positions. The scheme is validated through several benchmark tests including a simple uniform flow, a dam-breaking flow and violent sloshing flows. Incorporation of BM scheme is shown to be effective in enhancing the pressure calculation in projection-based particle methods with only a slight increase in computational cost.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据