Comparative study of the virtual flux method and immersed boundary method coupled with regularized lattice Boltzmann method for suspension flow simulations. (15th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kawaguchi, Misa; Fukui, Tomohiro; Morinishi, Koji
• Is Part Of: Computers & fluids. Volume 246(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-10-15
• Subjects: Pressure-driven flow -- Particle-laden flow -- Suspension rheology -- Fluid-solid interaction -- Multi-direct forcing; Fluid dynamics -- Data processing -- Periodicals; 532.050285
• DOI: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2022.105615
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0045-7930

Abstract

Highlights: RLBM coupled with three different schemes was examined in steady flow past a stationary cylinder. VFM and IBB are economical computational time compared to IBM for stationary problems. Relative viscosity by the VFM or IBM was comparable for dilute suspension (<5%). The VFM can reduce the time consumption for semidilute suspension flow simulations. Abstract: Suspension flows are ubiquitous in many fields, and reducing computational costs for numerical simulations of suspension flows remains a great challenge. Numerical simulations of particle-laden flows were performed here using the regularized lattice Boltzmann method (RLBM). RLBM, coupled with the virtual flux method (VFM) or the immersed boundary method (IBM) with the multi-direct forcing approach, conducted a series of three simulations for stationary and moving boundaries. The VFM and IBM results were compared for validation, and the computational efficiency was evaluated. For the two simulations using stationary and moving boundaries (i.e., a steady flow past a stationary cylinder and a plane Poiseuille flow including a single moving circular particle), the results based on the VFM and IBM were qualitatively comparable. The computational time for IBM was longer than that for VFM due to the iterations in its scheme. The pressure-driven suspension flow simulations showed that a dilute suspension's (<5%) relative viscosity was almost equivalent. The difference between the results obtained by the VFM and IBM in the semidilute regime (>10%) was discussed in terms of particle rotational motion. Even though the scalability for parallel computing was comparable between the VFM and IBM, the computational time could be effectively reduced by using the VFM instead of the IBM because of the increased suspension concentration.