4.7 Article

Improved lattice Boltzmann modeling of binary flow based on the conservative Allen-Cahn equation

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 94, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.94.023311

关键词

-

资金

  1. Young Scientists Fund of the National Science Foundation of China [11502210]
  2. Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China [2016JM1002]
  3. Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shenzhen City of China [JCYJ20160510140747996]
  4. Innovation Foundation for Doctoral Dissertation of Northwestern Polytechnical University [CX201501]
  5. China Scholarship Council
  6. National Science Foundation [EAR-1204762]
  7. Directorate For Geosciences
  8. Division Of Earth Sciences [1204762] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The primary and key task of binary fluid flow modeling is to track the interface with good accuracy, which is usually challenging due to the sharp-interface limit and numerical dispersion. This article concentrates on further development of the conservative Allen-Cahn equation (ACE) [Geier et al., Phys. Rev. E 91, 063309 (2015)] under the framework of the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM), with incorporation of the incompressible hydrodynamic equations [Liang et al., Phys. Rev. E 89, 053320 (2014)]. Utilizing a modified equilibrium distribution function and an additional source term, this model is capable of correctly recovering the conservative ACE through the Chapman-Enskog analysis. We also simulate four phase-tracking benchmark cases, including one three-dimensional case; all show good accuracy as well as low numerical dispersion. By coupling the incompressible hydrodynamic equations, we also simulate layered Poiseuille flow and the Rayleigh-Taylor instability, illustrating satisfying performance in dealing with complex flow problems, e.g., high viscosity ratio, high density ratio, and high Reynolds number situations. The present work provides a reliable and efficient solution for binary flow modeling.

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