Direct numerical simulation of decaying homogeneous isotropic turbulence–numerical experiments on stability, consistency and accuracy of distinct lattice Boltzmann methods
Abstract
Stability, consistency and accuracy of various lattice Boltzmann schemes are investigated by means of numerical experiments on decaying homogeneous isotropic turbulence (DHIT). Therefore, the Bhatnagar–Gross–Krook (BGK), the entropic lattice Boltzmann (ELB), the two-relaxation-time (TRT), the regularized lattice Boltzann (RLB) and the multiple-relaxation-time (MRT) collision schemes are applied to the three-dimensional Taylor–Green vortex, which represents a benchmark case for DHIT. The obtained turbulent kinetic energy, the energy dissipation rate and the energy spectrum are compared to reference data. Acoustic and diffusive scaling is taken into account to determine the impact of the lattice Mach number. Furthermore, three different Reynolds numbers [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are considered. BGK shows instabilities, when the mesh is highly underresolved. The diverging simulations for MRT are ascribed to a strong lattice Mach number dependency. Despite the fact that the ELB modifies the bulk viscosity, it does not mimic a turbulence model. Therefore, no significant increase of stability in comparison to BGK is observed. The TRT “magic parameter” for DHIT at moderate Reynolds numbers is estimated with respect to the energy contribution. Stability and accuracy of the TRT scheme is found to be similar to BGK. For small lattice Mach numbers, the RLB scheme exhibits lowered energy contribution in the dissipation range compared to an analytical model spectrum. Overall, to enhance stability and accuracy, the lattice Mach number should be chosen with respect to the applied collision scheme.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LBM simulation has a particular strength in multiphysics applications and is a suitable framework for the development of a computational model for algae trajectories and mass transfer.
“As an alternative approximation technique in CFD, an LBM simulation has a particular strength in multiphysics applications [19-34], and is a suitable framework for the development of a computational model for algae trajectories (LagrangeLagrange) and mass transfer (Euler-Lagrange).”
From Comprehensive Computational Model for Coupled Fluid Flow, Mass Transfer, and Light Supply in Tubular Photobioreactors Equipped with Glass Sponges (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Haussmann, M., Simonis, S., Nirschl, H., & Krause, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
- Venue
- International Journal of Modern Physics C
- Publisher
- World Scientific Pub Co Pte Lt
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 09
- Pages
- 1950074
- ISSN
- 0129-1831 (ISSN-L)
- 1793-6586
- OpenAlex
- W2960393003
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Modern Physics C (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Lattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Fluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Computational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
- Keywords
- decaying homogeneous isotropic turbulence, lattice Boltzmann method, multiple relaxation times, Taylor-Green vortex, numerical stability, energy spectrum, energy dissipation rate, turbulent kinetic energy, Reynolds number effects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review