BB versus IBB about lbm HOT 12 CLOSED

Hmmm, I am a bit confused. So are all results above obtained with a square cylinder? Shouldn't there be any difference between the two for a square cylinder? After all there is no stair-casing necessary.

from lbm.

Sorry, I did not detail the content of my plots enough :(
The figure in the legend of each plot corresponds the the refinement (ie nb of lattice cells in the y direction).

from lbm.

Oops, I made something wrong and deleted one of your comments :S sorry about that.

from lbm.

No, I deleted them, that with Reynolds was a typo.

from lbm.

I replied too early without thinking so I deleted them briefly afterwards. Are the results for a square cylinder? Shouldn't there be no difference between the two as there is no stair-casing involved?

from lbm.

From what I understood, IBB has an impact on stair-casing discretization, but it must also partially fix the problem of the exact position of the interface. Even without staircasing, the position of the exact interface using BB is inaccurate (the maximal error distance lying somewhere between dx/2 and dx, depending on how one sets the lattice cell to solid or fluid, I guess). Does that make sense to you ?

from lbm.

Normally the wall position is viscosity dependent with BGK but with TRT it is not and you can use the magic parameter to fix the position so it does not change in between simulations (because if you do not use diffusive scaling it does as the relaxation time changes!). So normally I would not expect TRT to show such behaviour and would not image the difference would be that big. BGK and TRT in my simulations as far as I can remember resulted in almost identical forces with bounce-back.

If you look at the mathematical formulation for a wall exactly located in between the two nodes (meaning p = self.obstacles[obs].ibb[k] should equal to 0.5), then the mathematical formula for interpolated bounce-back degenerates to simple bounce-back. This should be the case for a square cylinder meaning bounce-back and interpolated bounce-back should mathematically result in the same formula and yield the same results. If your graphs belong to a square cylinder then I assume either p is not set to 0.5 (meaning the geometry you simulate is slightly smaller or bigger) or there is a programming mistake somewhere (might also be the corners). I would in any case test if p=0.5 results in the same results as simple bounce-back.

from lbm.

Hi @2b-t :)

Well, I cannot say. I tested IBB with q=0.5, and I indeed obtain the same solution as with BB.
Then, I did the same test again (IBB vs BB, different levels of refinement, comparing with very fine FEM solution), but putting the square lower in the channel, to generate more lift :

It seems like the BB converges to a different value (I guess), while the IBB converges to the reference value. I will make a few more tests on other non-trivial shapes to see what I obtain.

from lbm.

Hey @jviquerat, how is it going? Sorry for answering so late, I have been a bit busy the last two days and completely forgot about answering.

Converging to different values for a q other than 0.5 does not seem implausible in my opinion as the simulated geometry is slightly different between the simulations (staircasing and size) but is nonetheless nothing I would have expected to that extend at least. The thing that really surprises me though and I can't find a good explanation for is that the curve for IBB and a resultion of 100 lattices is significantly worse than simple BB. The only explanation I can come up with is that the resolution might be too coarse for the interpolation used in the IBB. Let me know if you have any idea about what might cause this behaviour...

from lbm.

@2b-t No I have no idea. Might be that the channel configuration introduces too-steep gradients above and below the shape, causing the IBB not to perform well. I will clean and commit the code as it runs best now, and I will come back to it later I think ;)

If you ever feel like giving it a look, feel free to re-open an issue ;)

from lbm.

@jviquerat I will have a look this weekend. :) In case I see something I will re-open an issue. I think you can close this one as well!

from lbm.

Great ;)

from lbm.