4.5 Article

Cubature rules for weakly and fully compressible off-lattice Boltzmann methods

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE
卷 51, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocs.2021.101355

关键词

Lattice Boltzmann method; Cubature; Semi-Lagrangian; Gauss-Hermite quadrature; Compressible

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [FO 674/17-1]
  2. German Ministry of Education and Research
  3. Ministry for Culture and Science North Rhine-Westfalia, Germany [13FH156IN6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that using velocity sets derived from cubature rules can improve the accuracy and efficiency of weakly and fully compressible off-lattice Boltzmann simulations.
Off-lattice Boltzmann methods increase the flexibility and applicability of lattice Boltzmann methods by decoupling the discretizations of time, space, and particle velocities. However, the velocity sets that are mostly used in off-lattice Boltzmann simulations were originally tailored to on-lattice Boltzmann methods. In this contribution, we show how the accuracy and efficiency of weakly and fully compressible semi-Lagrangian off-lattice Boltzmann simulations are increased by velocity sets derived from cubature rules, i.e., multivariate quadratures not produced by the Gauss-product rule. In particular, simulations of 2D shock-vortex interactions indicate that the cubature-derived degree-nine D2Q19 velocity set is capable of replacing the Gauss-product rule-derived D2Q25. Likewise, the degree-five velocity sets D3Q13 and D3Q21, as well as a degree-seven D3V27 velocity set were successfully tested for 3D Taylor-Green vortex flows to challenge and surpass the quality of the customary D3Q27 velocity set. In compressible 3D Taylor-Green vortex flows with Mach numbers Ma = {0.5; 1.0; 1.5; 2.0} on-lattice simulations with velocity sets D3Q103 and D3V107 showed only limited stability, while the off-lattice degree-nine D3Q45 velocity set accurately reproduced the kinetic energy provided by literature.

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

4.5
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