4.7 Article

An interaction potential based lattice Boltzmann method with adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) for two-phase flow simulation

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS
卷 228, 期 17, 页码 6456-6478

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2009.05.034

关键词

Lattice Boltzmann method; Adaptive mesh refinement; Multiphase flow; Bubble; Interaction potential

资金

  1. American Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund [44515-AC9]
  2. Ohio Supercomputer Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) for two-phase flow simulation is often hindered by insufficient resolution at the interface. As a result, the LBM simulation of bubbles in bubbling flows is commonly limited to spherical or slightly deformed bubble shapes. In this study, the adaptive mesh refinement method for the LBM is developed to overcome such a problem. The approach for this new method is based on the improved interaction potential model, which is able to maintain grid-independent fluid properties in the two-fluid phases and at the interface. The LBM-AMR algorithm is described, especially concerning the LBM operation on a non-uniform mesh and the improved interaction potential model. Numerical simulations have been performed to validate the method in both single phase and multiphase flows. The 2D and 3D simulations of the buoyant rise of bubbles are conducted under various conditions. The agreement between the simulated bubble shape and velocity with experiments illustrates the capability of the LBM-AMR approach in predicting bubble dynamics even under the large bubble deformation conditions. Further, the LBM-AMR technique is capable of simulating a complex topology change of the interface. Integration of LBM with AMR can significantly improve the accuracy and reduce computation cost. The method developed in this study may appreciably enhance the capability of LBM in the simulation of complex multiphase flows under realistic conditions. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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