Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byLeslie Miles Modified over 3 years ago

1
Artificial Compressibility Method and Lattice Boltzmann Method Similarities and Differences Taku Ohwada ( 大和田 拓） Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Kyoto University （京都大学大学院工学研究科航空宇宙工学専攻） Collaborators : Prof. Pietro Asinari, Mr. Daisuke Yabusaki May 4, 2011, Spring School on the lattice Boltzmann Method Beijing Computational Science Research Center May 2-6 1 知彼知己者 百戰不殆 If you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss

2
2 0. What is a good numerical method ? Performance Cost (CPU) Education (Human CPU)

3
Many paths to the summit

4
4 1. INTRODUCTION

5
5 Kinetic methods for fluid-dynamic equations Gas Kinetic Scheme Lattice Boltzmann Method Boltzmann Eq. Euler, Navier-Stokes The path is INDIRECT ! Why Kinetic ?

6
6 An indirect method is not always your best choice.

7
7 Extraction of essence Subtraction rather than addition

8
Case of compressible flows Why Kinetic ? Kinetic gadget yields the flux for the Euler equations.

9
The discontinuities at cell-interfaces produce numerical dissipation, which suppresses spurious oscillations around shock waves……….. Shock Capturing ! Riemann Problem

10
Kinetic Flux Splitting Characteristics :

11
11 Experiment using undergraduate students. Prerequisite of Gas Kinetic Scheme is Taylor expansion !!!!

12
Gallery of Undergraduate Students ‘ Works Euler Navier-Stokes: Any asymptotic method is NOT employed. Blasius flow

13
13 Pressure distribution along the wall Present

14
14 Case of incompressible flows Gas kinetic Scheme Lax-Wendroff No kinetic ingredient !!!!

15
15 Case of incompressible flows LBM

16
16 LBM -> Lattice Kinetic Scheme (LKS) No kinetic ingredient !! LKS -> Lattice Scheme (LK) -> ACM

17
17 Incompressible case: More difficult than compressible case !!!

18
18 Poisson Free… Poisson Free !!! 2 nd order accurate BB Small time step Parallel computation !!! Bouzidi, Firdaouss, Lallemand (2001) Ginzburg, d’Humières (2003) LBM !

19
19 Chapman-Enskog expansion LBM Hilbert expansion (diffusive scale) LBM solves INSE via Artificial Compressibility Equations Prof. Asinari ’s morning lecture

20
20 Artificial Compressibility Method (ACM) (Chorin,1967) (Témam, 1969) usually LBM

21
21 Considering the fact that the lattice Boltzmann method starts with the kinetic theory and has been derived to conserve high-order isotropy, the lattice Boltzmann method should be more accurate than the artificial compressibility method in capturing pressure waves. He, Doolen, Clark (JCP2002) ACM: Macroscopic (356 papers) LBM: Kinetic (4053 papers)

22
22 Devil’s Project LBM-ACM Lattice Structure Collocated Grid LBM Kinetic ACM LBM Finite Difference (Finite Volume) ACM Chapman-Enskog Expansion

23
23 Cartesian Grid Finite DifferenceSpace : Central Difference Time : Semi-Implicit Time Step 2. Numerical Computation of ACM D2Q9

24
24

25
25

26
26 Basic form of ACM

27
4 th order accurate div u for compact stencil

28
28 Test Problems Generalized Taylor-Green Vortex (2D, 3D) Circular Couette Flow (2D) Flow Past a Cylinder in a Channel (2D) Lid-driven Cavity Flow (2D, 3D) Flow Past a Sphere in Uniform Flow (3D)

29
29 Periodic Boundary 2D Generalized Taylor-Green

30
30 Time history of L1 error

31
31 Convergence Rate (t=100)

32
32 3D Generalized Taylor-Green (3D-GTG)

33
33 R 5R Circular Couette Flow

34
34 Error of Velocity U θ (ACM)

35
35 Error of Velocity U θ (MRT)

36
36 Error of Pressure P (ACM)

37
37 Error of Pressure P (MRT)

38
38 Comparison UθUθ P ACM MRT ACM MRT

39
39 Convergence rate

40
40 M. Schäfer, S. Turek, (1996) The Flow Past a Cylinder D Non-Slip Boundary Poiseuille Flow 0th-order extrapolation Non-Slip Boundary 2.1D 2D

41
|div u| (Re=100) t=100 stream 41

42
|div u| (Re=100) 42 t=100

43
Re=100 (unsteady) 43

44
44 * M. Schäfer, S. Turek, (1996) LBM: Mussa, Asinari, Luo, JCP 228 (2009)

45
Adaptive Mesh Refinement 45 (Re=100) D Poiseuille Flow 0th-order extrapolation Simple Interpolation D: the diameter of the cylinder

46
Velocity u 46 t=100

47
Velocity v 47 t=100

48
Pressure 48 t=100

49
49 Top boundary 2D Lid-driven Cavity Flow

50
50 2D Lid-driven Cavity Flow CPU Time (129×129, 100000step) (intel Corei7, openMP) ACMMRT 55.01 sec405.51 sec ×7.37 356 papers 4053 papers

51
51 3D Lid-driven Cavity Flow Lo D. C., Murugesan K., Young D. L., Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2005) Grid : 100³

52
52 Flow past a sphere Re=300

53
53 Comparisons of LBM and ACM Taylor-Green Vortex Flow Flow past a Cylinder Lid-driven Cavity Flow Circular Couette Flow ACM is capable of practical 3D simulation Performance of ACM in 3D problems Conclusion LBM – ACM is NOT decisively positive !!! Flow past a Cylinder Lid-driven Cavity Flow

54
54 Intermission

55
55 Re=2000

56
56 Re=500

57
57 3. Theory of ACM

58
Convergence of the solution of ACE to the solution of INSE in the limit of. Témam (1969) How fast ?

59
59 A mathematical analysis shows (Moise and Ziane, Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2001) Numerical observations show that the error is O(k) !!

60
60 Diffusive mode of ACE solution Assumption

61
INSE Oseen type The intrinsic error of ACM

62
62 Acoustic mode of ACE solution Characteristic time ~ Characteristic length / Speed of wave

63
Initial data for ACE = Initial data for INSE acts as an initial impact !!!

64
64 Magnitude of acoustic mode

66
66 4. Improvement of ACM

67
67 4.1 Suppression of acoustic mode 1. Bulk viscosity

68
68 2. Dashpot Dashpot

69
69 1. Bulk viscosity 2. Dashpot

70
70 Time history of L1 error

71
4.2 Suppression of Checkerboard Instability 71 Acoustic mode killer Checkerboard killer stability 1 3 2

72
72 Collocated grid Staggered grid

73
73 P-contour 2D-LID Re=5000

74
74 P-contour *C.-H. Bruneau & M. Saad, Comput. & Fluids 35, 326-348 (2006) ACM (s=0,2) (256×256) C.-H. Bruneau* (2048×2048)

75
75 Stream line Pressure

76
76 Stream line Pressure

77
4.3 Enhancer of stability 77 Acoustic mode killer Checkerboard killer stability 1 3 2

78
S=0S=2 78 Velocity modes Pressure mode Linear Stability Analysis The normalized wave number Checkerboard killer

79
79 S=0S=2

80
Stability in Lid-Driven 80 ACM (s=0) ACM (s=2) MRT (χ=0.0378) LBGK (χ=0.0002) 32×32 × ○ ×× 64×64 × ○ ×× 96×96 ○○○ × 128×128 ○○○ × 256×256 ○○○○ Grid

81
Richardson Extrapolation in the Mach Numbers 81 Diffusive mode Linear Combination

82
High order accurate ACM 82 Spatial discretization 4 th order accuracy Time-marching 2 nd order accuracy (Semi-implicit Runge-Kutta) (5point central finite difference)

83
4 th order accurate div u for compact stencil

84
2 nd order accuracy4 th order accuracy

85
85 3D Generalized Taylor-Green (3D-GTG)

86
86 Curved Solid Boundary LBM ACM: Macroscopic data Interpolation or extrapolation e.g. Interpolation Bounce-Back Bouzidi, Firdaouss, Lallemand (2001) Ginzburg, d’Humières (2003)

87
87 x N W S E P y B Solid Body Fluid W E P B Quadratic extrapolation x at B

88
88 x N W S E P y B Solid Body Fluid W E P B Quadratic extrapolation x at B at P

89
Why not ACM? 89 Since the ACM does not employ any kinetic theory gadget, it is much easier than the LBM. Up to now, any decisive inferiority of ACM to LBM has not been found. Conversely, superiority of ACM over LBM has been found in some fundamental test problems. Therefore, it is highly recommended to master ACM before learning LBM.

90
Richardson extrapolation = 累遍増約術 Its usefulness for practical computations can hardly be overestimated. Birkoff & Rota, Ordinary differential equations (1978). Lewis Fry Richardson, ``Approximate arithmetical solution by finite differences of physical problems including differential equations, with an application to the stresses in a masonry dam ‘’, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London, Series A 210: 307–357 (1910).

91
91 谢谢您为您的关注

92
有问题吗？

93
93 Finite Volume ACM

94
94

95
95

96
96

97
The initial data for must be compatible with INSE. The initial data for troublesome Excitation of acoustic mode

Similar presentations

OK

Code verification and mesh uncertainty The goal is to verify that a computer code produces the right solution to the mathematical model underlying it.

Code verification and mesh uncertainty The goal is to verify that a computer code produces the right solution to the mathematical model underlying it.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on eddy current test Ppt on content development Download ppt on companies act 2013 Ppt on various properties of air Ppt on solar energy satellite Ppt on rc coupled amplifier experiment Ppt on carburetor systems Slides for ppt on android Ppt on standing order activation Ppt on cloud computing architecture