2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2021.105041
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improved wall model treatment for aerodynamic flows in LBM

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To obtain the friction velocity on the boundary points, it is preferable to interpolate the friction velocity instead of the flow velocity from the neighbor points. 18,19 It, thus, needs to invert the wall model at neighbor points, but it does not increase significantly the computation thanks to the explicit wall model. It is found in Cai et al 18 that the surface quantities are greatly smoothed even with a low order interpolation kernel, such as the inverse distance weighting.…”
Section: Attached Boundary Layermentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To obtain the friction velocity on the boundary points, it is preferable to interpolate the friction velocity instead of the flow velocity from the neighbor points. 18,19 It, thus, needs to invert the wall model at neighbor points, but it does not increase significantly the computation thanks to the explicit wall model. It is found in Cai et al 18 that the surface quantities are greatly smoothed even with a low order interpolation kernel, such as the inverse distance weighting.…”
Section: Attached Boundary Layermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Retrieving the boundary points away from walls is also useful to reduce the oscillations, such as Ref. 19. It is found in Ref.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They validate the case on just one angle of attack, for low Re (up to 42,000). Degrigny et al (2021) used the same LBM–LES approach to investigate fluid flow around the airfoil for high Re . Finally, Wilhelm et al (2018) investigated the same problem with an LBM–RANS coupled model, but for a different airfoil.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However as no underlying mesh will conform to the solid boundary, the imposition of boundary condition at the interface can be tricky. Interpolation methods are often selected to overcome this problem, either by locally reconstructing the velocity 9,10 or by adopting a source forcing function in the momentum equation [5][6][7][8] . In fact, the two approaches are essentially the same as they both rectify the velocity in the vicinity of immersed boundary to produce solid effect 11 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fluid) Predict the velocity ṽn+1 f using(10); Initialize values: (•) k=0,n+1 = (•) n , where (•) includes x s , ẋs , F;4 for k = 0 to k max do 5 Fluid) Construct or update the interpolation operator matrix T (x k,n+1 s ) and the moving force coefficient matrix M (x k,n+1 s )Fluid) Interpolate the fluid velocity T (x k,n+1 Interface) Solve the moving force equation (12a) for F k+1,n+1 with ẋk,n+1 s ; Solid) Compute the solid equations for (x k+1,n+1 s ||(•) k+1,n+1 − (•) k,n+1 ||/||(•) k+1,n+1 || < tolerance then 10 (•) n+1 = (•) k+1,n+1 ; Fluid) Correct the fluid velocity to vn+1 f with F n+1 using (12b); 17 (Fluid) Solve the pressure Poisson equation and compute the final velocity v n+1 f…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%