0
Research Papers: Fundamental Issues and Canonical Flows

Is the Lattice Boltzmann Method Applicable to Rarefied Gas Flows? Comprehensive Evaluation of the Higher-Order Models

[+] Author and Article Information
Minoru Watari

LBM Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,
3-2-1 Mitahora-higashi,
Gifu 502-0003, Japan
e-mail: watari-minoru@kvd.biglobe.ne.jp

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 10, 2014; final manuscript received June 28, 2015; published online August 21, 2015. Assoc. Editor: John Abraham.

J. Fluids Eng 138(1), 011202 (Aug 21, 2015) (18 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1654; doi: 10.1115/1.4031000 History: Received November 10, 2014

Lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) whose equilibrium distribution function contains higher-order terms is called higher-order LBM. It is expected that nonequilibrium physics beyond the Navier–Stokes can be accurately captured using the higher-order LBM. Relationship between the level of higher-order and the simulation accuracy of rarefied gas flows is studied. Theoretical basis for constructing higher-order LBM is presented. On this basis, specific higher-order models are constructed. To confirm that the models have been correctly constructed, verification simulations are performed focusing on the continuum regime: sound wave and supersonic flow in Laval nozzle. With applications to microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) in mind, low Mach number flows are studied. Shear flow and heat conduction between parallel walls in the slip flow regime are investigated to confirm the relaxation process in the Knudsen layer. Problems between concentric cylinders are investigated from the slip flow regime to the free molecule regime to confirm the effect of boundary curvature. The accuracy is discussed comparing the simulation results with pioneers' studies. Models of the fourth-order give sufficient accuracy even for highly rarefied gas flows. Increase of the particle directions is necessary as the Knudsen number increases.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Ratios of the averaged flow parameters: A/A*,ρ/ρ*,T/T*, and p/p* versus Mach. Maximum error in pressure relative to the value at the throat is 1%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Schematic view of velocity slip and temperature jump simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Tuning result, projected average particle speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Wave propagation in the speed of sound simulation: Δx = 0.01 and Δt = 0.0002

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Simulation results of the speed of sound: Δx = 0.1 and Δt = 0.002. Maximum error (L1 norm) relative to cs = 1.29 at T = 1 is 0.8%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Generalized coordinate system fitted with nozzle shape. The grids are 101 × 21. Δx = 0.1 and Δt = 0.001.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mach contours in the supersonic nozzle simulation for Model 4–10

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Nodes for the velocity slip and temperature jump simulations: Δx = 0.005 and Δt = 0.0002

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic view of speed of sound simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Grid of the physical space used in the simulations: Δr = 0.005,Δθ = π/100, and Δt = 0.00025

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Typical profile of velocity slip and temperature jump

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Grid convergence for the velocity slip simulation. The dotted line indicates the gradient 2 in log–log scale.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Simulation results of the velocity slip simulation. Maximum error of Model 10–24 relative to uyw = 0.01 is 0.3% for the velocity slip and 0.5% for the Knudsen profile.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Simulation results of the temperature jump simulation. Maximum error of Model 10–24 relative to ΔTw=0.01 is 0.6% for the temperature jump and 0.3% for the Knudsen profile.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Discontinuity in the velocity distribution near a convex boundary

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Schematic view of shear flow and heat conduction between concentric cylinders

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Simulation results. Azimuthal velocity uθ contours for Model 4–24.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Simulation results. Azimuthal velocity uθ contours for Models 4–60.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Simulation results. Temperature T contours for Models 4–60.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Temperature T profiles for Models 4–24 and 4–60 at θ = 0 deg and 7.2 deg. For Models 4–60, since the flow is uniform, only θ = 0 deg is shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Azimuthal velocity uθ profiles for Models 4–24 and 4–60 at θ = 0 deg and 7.2 deg. For Models 4–60, since the flow is uniform, only θ = 0 deg is shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparison of azimuthal velocity profiles uθ at θ=0 deg between Models 4 and 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Azimuthal velocity profiles are compared with previous studies. Models 4–10 and 4–24 for Kn≥0.5 are averaged profiles. The analytical solution of free molecule limit is not discernible overlapped with the Kn = 100. Maximum error of Models 4–60 relative to uθw=0.01 is 1–3%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Distribution function gki (k = 1) of Models 4–60 for Kn = 0.5 along θ = 0 at radial positions r=1.0…2.0. Cross symbols are the positions of discontinuity. Right figure shows the ranges of velocity distribution affected by emissions from the inner cylinder.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Standard deviations in azimuthal velocity divided by inner cylinder speed σuθ/uθw

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Shear stress prθ×r2 versus Knudsen number. Theoretical curve is constructed by combining studies by Ai, Cercignani and Sernagiotto, and analytical solution of the free molecule limit.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Shear stress prθ×r2 versus radial position for Models 4–60

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Simulation results. Temperature T contours for Models 4–24.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Temperature and density profiles for all models are compared with previous studies. The analytical solution of free molecule limit is not discernible overlapped with the Kn = 160. Maximum error in T of Models 4–60 relative to Tw1-Tw2=0.1 is 1–2%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Standard deviations in temperature divided by temperature difference σT/ΔTw

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Heat flux qr×r versus Knudsen number

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In