A Thesis

entitled
Towards Development of a Multiphase Simulation Model Using Lattice
Boltzmann Method (LBM)
by
Narender Reddy Koosukuntla
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Master of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering

Dr. Sorin Cioc, Committee Chair

Dr. Ray Hixon, Committee Member

Dr. Yong Gan, Committee Member

Dr. Patricia Komuniecki, Dean

College of Graduate Studies

The University of Toledo

December 2011

Copyright 2011, Narender Reddy Koosukuntla

This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no part of this
document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.

An Abstract of
Towards Development of a Multiphase Simulation Model Using Lattice
Boltzmann Method (LBM)
by
Narender Reddy Koosukuntla
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Master of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering
The University of Toledo
December 2011

Lattice Boltzmann Method is evolving as a substitute to the prevalent and

predominant CFD modeling especially in cases such as multiphase flows, porous
media flows and micro flows. This study is aimed at developing simulation
model for multiphase flows for practical applications such as cavitation in a
journal bearing or lubrication of micro contact. The code is first validated against
benchmark single phase flows like Poiseulle flow and flow over a cylinder. In the
process, various boundary conditions like velocity, pressure, out-flow, no-slip
and periodic boundary conditions are tested. Finally, the Shan-Chen model for
multiphase physics, which is based on the interaction force between the fluid
particles, is incorporated into the code and is validated.

iii

To my family and my teachers

Acknowledgements
I express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr.Sorin Cioc for his great
support while working on this thesis. It took me some time in understanding the
Lattice Boltzmann Method and collecting the literature related to it. Dr. Cioc was
very patient, motivated me whenever I was down and helped me in
understanding the concepts better. Without his encouragement and guidance
this thesis would not have been possible.
I sincerely thank Dr. Ray Hixon for his valuable lectures in CFD and for
being on the committee. The assignments and project work by Dr. Hixon gave a
foundation to me in numerical methods and programming. I sincerely thank Dr.
Yong Gan for being on the committee. Dr. Gan was encouraging and positive
about the outcome of this work.
I would like to thank the administrators and members of the forum at
www.palabos.org for their timely replies. I thank Dr.Michael Sukop (Florida
International University) for replying to my emails on questions related to LBM.
I am thankful to my friend Dr.Vasanth Allampalli for all the exciting discussions
we had. Finally, I take this opportunity to thank my family and all my friends for
their unconditional love and support.

Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... v
Contents............................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... x
1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Lattice Gas Automata ....................................................................................... 2

1.3

Evolution of Lattice Boltzmann Method ....................................................... 4

1.4

Distribution Functions ..................................................................................... 5

2 Lattice Boltzmann Method ......................................................................................... 8

2.1

Boltzmann Equation ......................................................................................... 8

2.2

BGK Collision Operator ................................................................................... 9

2.3

Lattice Boltzmann Equation .......................................................................... 10

2.3.1 Equilibrium distribution functions.................................................... 12
2.3.2 D2Q9 Model .......................................................................................... 13
vi

2.3.3 Recovering Navier-Stokes Equations ................................................ 15

2.4

Computational Approach .............................................................................. 16

2.5

Boundary Conditions ..................................................................................... 18

2.5.1 No-Slip Boundary Conditions............................................................ 19
2.5.2 Zou-He Velocity and Pressure Conditionss ..................................... 20
2.5.3 Periodic boundary conditions ............................................................ 24

2.6

Incompressible D2Q9 Model ......................................................................... 25

2.6.1 Zou-He Boundary conditions for Incompressible D2Q9 ............... 26

3 Coding, Validation & Verification ........................................................................... 28

3.1

About the Code ............................................................................................... 28

3.2

Velocity Driven Poiseulle Flow..................................................................... 29

3.2.1 Conversion to Lattice Units ................................................................. 30
3.2.2 Analytical Solution ............................................................................... 32
3.2.3 Boundary Conditions ........................................................................... 33
3.2.4 Results ..................................................................................................... 34

3.3

Verification of the Order of Accuracy .......................................................... 36

3.4

Pressure driven Poiseulle Flow ..................................................................... 39

3.4.1 Boundary Conditions ........................................................................... 39
3.4.2 Analytical Solution ............................................................................... 40
3.4.3 Results ..................................................................................................... 40

3.5

Flow over a Cylinder (Re=100) ..................................................................... 43

3.5.1 Parameters.............................................................................................. 43
vii

3.5.2 Boundary Conditions ........................................................................... 45

3.5.3 Results ..................................................................................................... 45
4 Multi-Phase LBM ....................................................................................................... 50
4.1

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 50

4.2

Shan-Chen Model............................................................................................ 50

4.3

Validation ......................................................................................................... 54

4.4

Fluid-Wall Interaction .................................................................................... 56

4.5

Parabolic Slider Bearing ................................................................................. 57

4.5.1 Results ..................................................................................................... 58

5 Conclusions & Future Work ..................................................................................... 62

References ....................................................................................................................... 66

viii

List of Tables
3.1

Table showing the parameters for Velocity driven Poiseulle flow. 30

3.2

Table showing the combinations of width and velocity (Re=100) for a

velocity driven Poiseulle flow... 37

3.3

Study of convergence factor ... 38

3.4

Table showing the parameters for pressure driven Poiseulle flow. 39

3.5

Table showing the parameters for flow over a cylinder 43

4.1

Table showing the adsorption coefficient for various contact angles. 56

4.2

Table showing the parameters for Parabolic Slider bearing ........ 58

ix

List of Figures
1-1

Square lattice showing links from node A to its neighboring nodes . 2

1-2

Triangular lattice showing links from node A to its neighboring nodes .. 3

2-1

Velocities and their directions in D2Q9 model . 15

2-2

Figure showing collision and propagation .... 18

2-3

Figure showing missing distribution functions on boundary nodes 19

2-4

Figure depicting bounce back method for No-Slip velocity condition . 19

2-5

Missing distribution functions on the inlet boundary . 21

2-6

Figure showing the periodic boundary .. 24

2-7

Periodic boundaries after implementation.. 24

3-1

Figure showing subroutine with parallelization using OpenMP 29

3-2

Figure depicting the resultant velocity at steady state in a velocity

driven Poiseulle flow. 34

3-3

Plot showing flow development in the channel across various cross

sections for velocity driven Poiseulle flow 35

3-4

Comparison between analytical and numerical solution for velocity

driven Poiseulle flow 36

3-5

Plot of Error v.s. number of grid points along the width of channel for
verification of accuracy ..... 38

3-6

Residual plot for pressure driven Poiseulle flow.. 40

3-7

Figure showing the resultant velocity for a pressure driven Poiseulle

flow .. 41

3-8

Density variation in a pressure driven Poiseulle flow 42

3-9

Comparison between analytical and numerical solution for pressure

driven Poiseulle flow. 42

3-10 Figure showing geometrical specifications for flow over a cylinder.. 43

3-11 Inlet parabolic velocity profile for flow over a cylinder 44
3-12 Instantaneous

velocity contours for flow over a cylinder .... 45

3-13 Instantaneous

velocity contours in the vicinity of the cylinder 46

3-14 Coefficient of drag, , for flow over a cylinder (asymmetrically placed

in the channel) .... 46
3-15 Coefficient of drag, , for flow over a cylinder (symmetrically placed in
the channel) ..... 47
3-16 Coefficient of lift, , for flow over a cylinder (symmetrically placed in
the channel) ..... 48
3-17 Figure showing vorticity for flow over an asymmetrically placed
cylinder in the channel .. 49
4-1

Figure showing Equation of State for Shan-Chen multiphase model 54

4-2

Normalized density pictures showing phase separation at various time

steps with the random variable
55

4-3

Normalized density pictures showing phase separation at various time

steps with the random variable
.. 56

4-4

Normalized density pictures showing the formation of contact angles

with different adsorption coefficients.. 57

xi

4-5

Figure showing the geometry of the slider bearing... 58

4-6

Figure showing normalized density in the slider bearing at various time

steps.. 59

4-7

Figure showing the condensation in the slider bearing 60

4-8

Figure showing high pressure region in slider bearing 60

xii

Chapter 1
Background
1.1

Introduction
The Navier-Stokes equations are solved in standard CFD. These equations

are set of partial differential equations which are non-linear in nature and
derived based on the laws of conservation of mass, momentum and energy [1].
These equations are macroscopic in nature, which assumes that the fluid is a
continuum [1]. Solving these equations numerically requires discretization (finite
difference, finite volume, or finite element) of the partial differential equations.
Numerical instabilities are the major issue in these methods [2].
Molecular Dynamics (MD) is a microscopic approach where the fluid
dynamics is modeled based on the collisions and other interactions between the
individual molecules [3]. In these models the macroscopic properties are
recovered using statistical mechanics [3]. The major drawback in MD models is
excessive usage of the computing resources and their limitation to extend to
larger domains [3]. Lattice Gas Automata (LGA), one of the Molecular Dynamics
model forms the precursor for Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM) which is
1

evolving as a substitute to the prevalent and predominant CFD [4]. In this

chapter, an insight into LGA and the evolution of the LBM is discussed briefly.

1.2

Lattice Gas Automata

Lattice is a regular arrangement of primitive shapes. There are many

kinds of lattice in two dimensions where the primitive shape can be rectangle,
triangle, regular hexagon etc. A square lattice is shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1: Square lattice showing links from node A to its neighboring
nodes. This lattice is used in the HPP model.
Lattice Gas Automata (LGA) deals with a group of particles residing on
the lattice nodes and colliding with particles located at the neighboring nodes
while conserving the mass and the momentum.

Each particle is assigned a

velocity whose direction is along the link connecting one of the neighboring
nodes. Thus the particles possess momentum and the collisions between them
are governed by a set of rules which change the velocities of the particles while
conserving the total momentum of all the particles summed up at a node. The
particles then propagate to their surrounding nodes according to the direction of
2

their new velocities. During each time step iteration, at each lattice node, there is
collision between the particles followed by propagation. These kinds of models
were first proposed by Hardy, Pomeau and de Pazzis [5] [6] in 1973. This model,
named HPP after them, was aimed at recovering the Navier-Stokes equations,
but failed to do so. Figure 1-1 shows the lattice used in the HPP model.

Figure 1-2: Triangular lattice showing links from node A to its

neighboring nodes. This lattice used in the FHP model.

Frisch, Hasslacher and Pomeau in 1986 have found out that, in addition to
the conservation of mass and momentum, in order to ensure isotropy the
underlying lattice must be sufficiently symmetric [7]. They replaced the square
lattice used in the HPP model with a triangular lattice shown in Figure 1-2 which
gives hexagonal symmetry. This model was named after them as FHP. Further
details about these models are not relevant to the present scope of the thesis and
will not be discussed here.
LGA models are basically described by the kinetic equation

(1.1)
where

is a boolean in direction having a velocity of

and

is the collision

function, which is dependent on the LGA model. Vectors from here on are
represented using bold letters, e.g. in the above equation

is a vector and

is a

scalar.
In these models the density is calculated by summing up the total number
of particles at each node.
(1.2)
Similarly the momentum density is given by
(1.3)
where

1.3

is the macroscopic velocity (mean velocity of all the particles).

Evolution of Lattice Boltzmann Method

The validity of the LGA was tested by many researchers who have

simulated specific flows which have exact analytical solutions [8] [9] [10]. The
microscopic nature of the LGA resulted in the simulations to be intrinsically
noisy [10] [11] and proved to be costly in terms of memory and time taken for the
computations [10]. In order to eliminate this noise, McNamara and Zanetti in
1988 [10] have introduced the first generation Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM),
by replacing the boolean fields in Eq. (1.1) by the single particle distribution
functions

[12]
4

(1.4)
These models will not be operated in a microscopic scale since we are not dealing
with single particles anymore. These kinds of models are called as mesoscopic
models in literature.
Though the reduction in noise was observed, these models inherited other
problems from LGA such as lack of Galilean invariance [10]. However, modern
LBMs use the Boltzmann distribution functions and are free from all the
problems which are encountered by the LGA [12]. Though LGA forms the precursor for the development of LBM, it was shown by various authors that Eq.
(1.4) can be derived through proper phase space discretization of the Boltzmann
equation. The details of one such derivation are given in Section 2.3.
For proper understanding of the Lattice Boltzmann Method it is necessary
to get an insight into the distribution functions. Some brief notes on the MaxwellBoltzmann distribution functions are presented in the next section.

1.4

Distribution Functions
An insight into the Maxwell distribution functions is given in the online

reference [13]. Excerpts from this reference are put in this section for easy
accessibility.
The distribution function

is defined as the fraction of particles in a

certain location of a container of gas having velocities between

and

direction. The total fraction of particles which have the velocities in between
5

in

and

and

and

is given by

. The

appropriate form of the particle distribution function is proposed by Maxwell

using his symmetry argument.
(1.5)
In a three dimensional velocity space the magnitude of velocity is given by
(1.6)
The above equation actually represents a sphere centered at origin with the
surface area

. The distribution function corresponding to all the

combinations of the triples

which yield the same speed

is given by
(1.7)

All these fractions corresponding to

add up to one
(1.8)

Solving the definite integral Eq. (1.8), a relation between the constants

and

is

derived as
(1.9)

The average kinetic energy per particle is given by

(1.10)

(1.11)
where

is the mass of the particle. On the other hand, the average kinetic

energy in-terms of temperature

and Boltzmann constant

is given as
(1.12)

Therefore the value of B is

(1.13)
The final result after substituting the values of

in the Eq. (1.7) is given as

(1.14)

If the velocities are considered instead of the speeds, the distribution function is
given as
(1.15)

where

is the velocity vector.

Chapter 2
Lattice Boltzmann Method

2.1

Boltzmann Equation
The Boltzmann equation is a partial differential equation which governs

the transport phenomenon of the density distribution function. This function is

defined as

, which denotes the mass density at location

by the set of particles having the velocity in range

move to a location

after time

contributed

about . These particles

has elapsed. The number of

particles in this set doesnt change in the absence of collisions [14].

(2.1)
If collisions between particles are accounted then the number of particles in the
final set will change and is given by introducing a collision function
defines the rate of change of the distribution function

at a fixed point

which
[14].
(2.2)

In the limit

, the equation transforms to

(2.3)

where the total derivative is defined as

(2.4)
The moments of the distribution function over velocity space are taken to obtain
the macroscopic quantities such as density, momentum density, and internal
energy [14]
(2.5)
(2.6)
(2.7)
where

2.2

is the macroscopic velocity vector and is the specific internal energy.

BGK Collision Operator

In general, the Boltzmann equation Eq. (2.3) is difficult to solve even for

simple physical systems, mainly because of collision terms [15]. Bhatnagar, Gross
and Krook [15] in 1954 have replaced the troublesome collision function with a
mathematically simple relaxation term based on the fact that the collisions tend
to relax the distribution function to equilibrium.
(2.8)

The relaxation time is given by

and

is the equilibrium distribution function.

This equilibrium distribution function has a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of

velocities and is proportional to the density [15].

2.3

Lattice Boltzmann Equation

As discussed in Section 1.2 and 1.3, the Lattice Boltzmann Equation (LBE)

has its roots from the LGA. It is also possible to derive the LBE by appropriate
phase discretization of the continuous Boltzmann equation (2.3) [16] [17]. Finite
set of velocities

along the links of the lattice are introduced and the

distribution function
distribution functions

is transformed to corresponding discrete

by the authors of reference [17] as follows:

In order to preserve the conservation laws, when discretized, these

moments must be preserved exactly [17]. In general, the moments of the
distribution function are given by
(2.9)
where

is a polynomial in .

The integral Eq. (2.9) can be evaluated by the quadrature as

(2.10)
where

are the weights and

is the number of abscissas chosen (discrete

velocities).
The integrals Eq. (2.5)-(2.7) are thus transformed into summation:
10

with

, the mass density is given as

(2.11)

with

, the momentum density is given as

(2.12)

with

, the internal energy is given as

(2.13)

where
(2.14)
(2.15)
Since

are constants, the discrete form of the Boltzmann equation Eq. (2.3)

using the BGK collision operator is then given by

(2.16)
First order discretization of the above equation with lattice spacing
step

and time

[18] leads to

(2.17)

11

(2.18)
where the velocity

and the frequency

dimensionless relaxation time

are

and the known function is

is related to the

[16] [17]. In the Eq. (2.18) the unknowns

.

2.3.1 Equilibrium distribution functions

The equilibrium distribution functions for modern LBM are chosen as the
Maxwell distribution functions discussed in Section 1.4
(2.19)
where

for a two dimensional model which is used in the current work. The

speed of sound,
temperature

, can be related to the constants Boltzmann constant

and mass

as
(2.20)

Expanding the Eq. (2.19) in the low-Mach number limit [17]:

(2.21)
The Taylor series expansion of

is given as
(2.22)

Using Eq. (2.22) we have

(2.23)

12

(2.24)
Based on the above equations, the equilibrium distribution function expanded in
the low Mach number limit is approximated as [17]
(2.25)
For the velocity

we have
(2.26)

According to Eq. (2.15)

The weights

are derived based on the model chosen. Different models exist

based on the dimension of the problem, the number of discrete microscopic

velocities and the lattice itself [19]. The physical point

in the discretized

physical/temporal space corresponds to a point on the lattice.

2.3.2 D2Q9 Model

D2Q9 model is referred as a two dimensional model with square lattice
and nine-velocities. As discussed in the previous section the weights

are

specific to the model. These weights are derived by evaluating the moments of
equilibrium distribution function given in Eq. (2.25). Substituting the equilibrium
distribution function Eq. (2.25) into Eq. (2.9)

13

(2.27)
For a two dimensional model the polynomial

is set to [17]
(2.28)

This assumption, in general, is sufficient to calculate the required moments (mass

density, momentum density and internal energy) [17]. Evaluating the integral
given in Eq. (2.27) it was shown [17] that the equilibrium distribution function is
given by
(2.29)
where
(2.30)
and the velocities of this model have three distinct values of the magnitudes
given by (See also Figure 2-1)

(2.31)

The value of

is chosen as

where

is the lattice spacing and

is the

time step. For this model, the speed of the sound is related to the lattice velocity
as

14

(2.32)
The equilibrium distribution function for the finite set of velocities of D2Q9
model is then given as
(2.33)

Figure 2-1: Velocities and their directions in D2Q9 model.

distribution functions are labeled in blue color.

The

2.3.3 Recovering Navier-Stokes Equations

Application of the Chapman-Enskog expansion [14] to the lattice
Boltzmann equation for D2Q9 model in the incompressible limit yields the
Navier-Stokes equations [12] [4]. The corresponding shear viscosity is
(2.34)
and the equation of state is

15

(2.35)
where

is the speed of the sound.

Though a first order discretization is used in deriving the Lattice Boltzmann

equation, Eq. (2.18), the method is second order accurate in both space and time
[20]. The viscosity of the Boltzmann Equation, Eq. (2.3) with BGK collision
operator, is

; By correcting this viscosity to Eq. (2.34) for the Lattice

Boltzmann Equation, the truncation errors are corrected [20].

2.4

Computational Approach
In order to make the model computationally simple, the time step

the grid spacing

unit

are chosen to be equal to one time step

and

and one lattice

in a system of units specific to the LBM called lattice units. The other

dependent parameters are scaled appropriately. Once the computations are

done, the results are scaled back. Detailed explanation on these steps is given in
the section 3.2.
Eq. (2.18) can be written as
(2.36)
where
(2.37)

16

(2.38)

The

direction values of

are given as:

(2.39)

The

direction values of

are given as:

(2.40)

Re-arranging the terms of Eq. (2.36) with

we have
(2.41)

The value of

(in lattice units) is used from here on. The above equation is

solved in two steps namely, collision and propagation (see Figure 2-2). The right
side of the equation corresponds to the collision and the left side corresponds to
propagation. The two steps are written as
(2.42)
(2.43)
where
the node

is the post collision value. The collision step, Eq. (2.42) is local to
which makes it easy to implement using parallel computing

techniques.

17

Figure 2-2: Figure showing collision and propagation. The first step,
collision is local to node A. The post collision distribution
functions (maroon color) are propagated to the neighboring
nodes as shown in the last figure
The boundary nodes do not have all the neighboring nodes, hence there are some
missing distribution functions on these nodes after the propagation step is
carried out. These missing distribution functions are derived from the various
types of boundary conditions needed to solve the problem.

2.5

Boundary Conditions
The macroscopic quantities such as

are computed by the summation

of the distribution functions as mentioned in Eq. (2.11-2.13). Whereas on the

boundary nodes we have the macroscopic quantities which need to be
transformed into the missing distribution functions. Figure 2-3 shows the
missing distribution functions on the boundary nodes after the propagation step.
Boundary conditions like no-slip, constant velocity inlet, constant pressure,
outflow etc., are implemented in different ways by various authors. Some of
these boundary conditions which have been used in this thesis are explained
below.
18

Figure 2-3: Figure showing missing distribution functions on boundary

nodes. The nodes marked with B are the boundary nodes and
the ones marked with I are the interior nodes. Not all nodes are
showing the distribution functions for the purpose of clear
illustration.

2.5.1 No-Slip Boundary Conditions

The no-slip boundary condition used in this work is achieved using the
bounce-back method. This method is relatively easy to implement and is suitable
for any kind of geometries.

Figure 2-4: Figure depicting the bounce back method. The distribution
functions are reversed.

19

The fundamental concept of the bounce back method is that the out-going
distribution functions are reflected back into the domain. Based on the method of
this reflection these boundary conditions are classified into two types, namely
full-way bounce back and the half-way bounce back [21].
In a full-way bounce back method the collision step is skipped on the wall
nodes, instead the direction of the distribution functions on the wall nodes is
reversed [21]. The streaming step is carried out as usual. On any wall node
the collision step in Eq. (2.42) is replaced by the following equation
(2.44)
where

is the opposite direction of . In a half-way bounce back method the

collision step is carried out as usual but the incoming distribution functions on
the wall nodes at time

are replaced by the outgoing distribution functions on

the wall nodes at time

[21]. Thus, in a half-way bounce back method, the

collision step is un-altered. In both the methods of implementing the bounce

back boundary conditions the no-slip condition is achieved half-way between the
wall and the fluid node [22].

2.5.2 Zou-He Velocity and Pressure Conditionss

Zou and He in 1997 have proposed a method of specifying the velocity and
pressure on the boundaries [23]. In this method only the missing distribution
functions are derived from the specified macroscopic pressure or velocity. For an
inlet boundary node , after the streaming step has been carried out, it is seen in
20

Figure 2-5 that the distribution functions

are missing. The values of the

missing distribution functions in-terms of the known distribution functions and

the given inlet velocity are derived by Zou and He [23] as follows.

Figure 2-5: Inlet boundary conditions. Figure A shows the missing

distribution functions at the inlet. Figure B shows the
populated distribution functions (in green) with the Zou-He
method.
From Eq. (2.11):

(2.45)
where

is the intermediate calculated density

From Eq. (2.12):

where

is the

component of the inlet velocity and

the lattice velocity in direction. Using Eq. (2.39) yields

21

is the

component of

(2.46)
Similarly, in

where

direction (parallel to the boundary)

is the

component of the inlet velocity. With

for the inlet

velocity condition,
(2.47)
From Eq. (2.45) and Eq. (2.46)
(2.48)
An assumption that the non-equilibrium part of distribution functions normal to
the boundary are bounced back is made by Zou and He [23]

From the Eq. (2.33)

22

Thus the value of the distribution function

is given as
(2.49)

With

known and solving Eq. (2.43) and (2.44), the values of

are given as
(2.50)
(2.51)

It should be observed that the inlet velocity is normal to the boundary and does
not have any

directional component.

Similarly the pressure boundary condition is implemented by substituting

the missing distribution functions as follows:
(2.52)

(2.53)
(2.54)

(2.55)

Where

is the calculated intermediate velocity and

to inlet pressure through the equation of state (EOS).

23

is the density related

2.5.3 Periodic boundary conditions

Unlike conventional CFD, periodic boundary conditions are implemented
in a different fashion in LBM.

Figure 2-6: Figure showing the periodic boundary.

Figure 2-7: Figure showing the periodic boundary condition after

implementation. The corner nodes A, B, C, D still does not
have all the distribution functions.
24

The post collision distribution functions on the boundary nodes are copied
onto the other periodic boundary as if the propagation step was carried out.
Figure 2-6 below demonstrates how the post collision distribution functions on
the right boundary are shifted to the left periodic boundary. Once the periodic
boundary condition is implemented, the corner nodes still have missing
distribution functions (nodes

in Figure 2-7). These missing distribution

functions are calculated from the boundary conditions on the other sides (top
and bottom).

2.6

Incompressible D2Q9 Model

He and Luo have proposed an incompressible model which reduces the

compressibility effects of the model described so far [24]. The density in
calculating the equilibrium distribution function is replaced by
(2.56)
where

is the average fluid density and

is the fluctuation in the density.

Hence the new equilibrium distribution function is derived by substituting the

new value of the density and ignoring the higher order terms

.
(2.57)

The density

and the momentum density are now given by the equations

(2.58)

25

(2.59)
It should be noted that the average fluid density

is used for calculating the

momentum density. The Zou-He boundary conditions which are derived based
on the equilibrium distribution function are subject to change with this model
but the bounce back method for the no-slip boundary condition remains the
same.

2.6.1 Zou-He Boundary conditions for Incompressible D2Q9

The derivation of the boundary conditions for the incompressible model is
similar to deriving the boundary conditions mentioned in Section 2.7.2. The new
equilibrium distribution function Eq. (2.57) is used in the process. The final
equations for the velocity inlet condition are given as:
(2.60)
(2.61)
(2.62)
(2.63)
The final equations for the pressure inlet condition are given as:
(2.64)

26

(2.65)
(2.66)
(2.67)
(2.68)
The incompressible D2Q9 model is used for solving the Poiseulle flow and flow
over a cylinder in the next chapter.

27

Chapter 3
Coding, Validation & Verification

3.1

About the Code

A modularized in house FORTRAN 90 code was developed. Intel Visual

Fortran for Windows was used for this purpose. Most common features of LBM,
collision, propagation, various boundary conditions, calculating macro variables
like density, velocity from the distribution functions were written as different
modules and tested.
The code reads the flow parameters like the grid dimensions, model used
(original, incompressible), number of time steps, data output variables,
dimensionless relaxation time
control file.

and other problem specific constants from the

Data utilities were developed to write the values to file at set

intervals. The code has the ability to write the values in *.dat and *.vtk formats.
These data files are read by software like MATLAB and ParaView to assess the
results. Problems which have analytical/experimental results like Poiseulle flow,
flow over a cylinder were solved using this code for validation.

28

Function profiling was used to find the highly time consuming functions.
The expensive functions were parallelized using OpenMP [25]. The following
code snippet shows how the propagation function which is non local is
parallelized.
! Subroutine to stream to next nodes
SUBROUTINE Stream(fplus, f, xDim, yDim)
USE LBM_Constants, ONLY: ex, ey
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER, INTENT(IN):: xDim, yDim
DOUBLE PRECISION, INTENT(INOUT):: f(xDim,yDim,0:8)
DOUBLE PRECISION, INTENT(IN):: fplus(xDim,yDim,0:8)
INTEGER:: j, x, y, xnew, ynew
!$OMP PARALLEL PRIVATE(xnew, ynew)
!$OMP DO
DO j = 0, 8
DO x=1,
xDim
DO y=1, yDim
xnew = x+ex(j)
ynew = y+ey(j)
IF ((xnew >= 1 .AND. xnew &
& <= xDim) .AND. & (ynew >= &
& 1 .AND. ynew <= yDim &
& )) f(xnew,ynew,j)=fplus(x,y,j)
END DO
END DO
END DO
!$OMP END DO
!$OMP END PARALLEL
END SUBROUTINE Stream

Figure 3-1: Figure showing a subroutine with parallelization using

OpenMP.

3.2

Velocity Driven Poiseulle Flow

The flow between parallel plates driven by an inflow with a certain

velocity and an outflow was solved. The analytical solution of this flow was
compared to the numerical solution. A fluid with the following properties was

29

chosen for this study. An incompressible LBM model was chosen as it best suits
the problem.
Table 3.1: Table showing the parameters for Velocity driven Poiseulle flow
Inlet
Velocity

Density

Channel
Width

Channel
Length

Reynolds
Number

3.2.1 Conversion to Lattice Units

The Reynolds number for this flow is given by
(3.1)

From the above equation the kinematic viscosity is

The parameters are converted into lattice units where the time step and the grid
spacing are

and

respectively. The parameters are converted directly to

lattice units from physical units. The following steps show how the physical
units (with a subscript p) are transformed to lattice units (with a subscript l).
Let the number of points in

direction, which account for the width of the

channel be

The width of the channel in lattice units is

with the grid spacing

. The relation between the physical grid spacing and the lattice grid
spacing is given as
30

(3.2)

Using the above relation the grid spacing in physical units is given as

Let the value of the dimensionless relaxation time be

. Recalling the

formula for kinematic viscosity, Eq. (2.34)

In lattice units, where

, the speed of sound is

(in

lattice units). Using these values, the value of kinematic viscosity in lattice units
is

The relation between the viscosity in physical units and lattice units is given by
(3.3)

and therefore

The inlet velocity when converted into lattice units is given by

To scale the density, the unit for mass in lattice units is defined as
the units for density in lattice units is given as
31

and hence

and the units for pressure

is

. The fluid density in lattice units is chosen based on the reference

density.
(3.4)

To verify if the transformation is correct, we calculate the Reynolds number

using the parameters in lattice units

Hence it is verified that both systems have the same Reynolds number. It is also
important to verify the Mach number in lattice units

If the Mach number is not considerably less than unity (

the simulation

might get unstable because the model recovers macroscopic equations in lowMach number limit. In order to reduce the Mach number we can increase the
number of grid points (

) across the channel width or decrease the value of the

relaxation parameter

. It should also be noted that when the value of the

relaxation parameter

approaches

, the value of the kinematic viscosity

approaches . Hence it is necessary to find an optimum set of parameter values.

The results are converted back to physical units by scaling them using

3.2.2 Analytical Solution

The analytical solution for the Poiseulle flow with uniform velocity inlet
is given by the following equations provided as follows
32

The maximum centre line velocity is given as

The average velocity is given a

The velocity profile is given by,

where

is the position of the top wall and

is the position of the bottom

wall.

3.2.3 Boundary Conditions

The uniform inlet velocity is implemented by Zou-He Velocity boundary
conditions. No-slip condition using the bounce back method is implemented on
the walls. With the bounce back boundary conditions, the wall is situated half
way between the wall node and the neighboring fluid node. This is corrected by
taking an extra lattice unit in the width of the channel. If there are

nodes along

the width of the channel, the effective channel width, which considers the
effective wall is

So,

nodes are taken instead which accounts for the width of

and

with

. This can be avoided by using Zou-He velocity

condition as the no-slip condition and by substituting the value of velocity as

33

zero. In case we use the Zou-He velocity condition as the no-slip, as we are using
the Zou-He condition for the inlet velocity too, there will be insufficient
distribution functions on the corner nodes which needs special treatment. The
outflow condition used in this case is achieved by extrapolating the velocities on
the boundary and implementing these extrapolated velocities using the Zou-He
velocity boundary condition.

3.2.4 Results
The results are collected after the solution has reached a steady state. The
steady state condition is checked by calculating the residual at each time step. If
the residual is less than
The residual is taken on the

then the solution is expected to reach steady state.

component of the velocity and is given by the

equation below
(3.5)

Figure 3-2: Figure depicting the resultant velocity at steady state in a

Velocity driven Poiseulle flow. The maximum centre line
velocity of 0.25
is achieved in the centre as expected. The
velocity near the walls is zero.
34

Figure 3-2 shows the flow in the channel at a steady state. The analytical and the
numerical results at a downstream location of the channel are compared to see if
they are in agreement with each other.
Flow development

x=4

0.250

x=50
x=100
x=150
x=200

0.150

x=350

0.100

Velocity (lu/ts)

0.200

0.050

0.000
1

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

Y Position

Figure 3-3: Flow development in the channel across various cross section
along -direction. The flow is developed towards a complete
Poiseulle profile.

Figure 3-3 shows the plots of the velocities across the channel at various
positions along the channel length. Figure 3-4 shows the comparison between
the numerical solution and the analytical solution. It is observed that the
numerical results are in good agreement with the analytical solution.

35

The no-slip boundary condition and the velocity inlet condition are
benchmarked with this case as the results of match with the analytical solution.
Analytical Vs. Numerical
0.25

Analytical
x=250

Velocity (lu/ts)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

Y Position
Figure 3-4: Comparison between the analytical and numerical solution.
The numerical solution is in complete agreement with the
analytical solution.

3.3

Verification of the Order of Accuracy

The code is verified for its accuracy by fixing the Reynolds number in the

velocity driven Poiseulle flow. Recalling the equation for Reynolds number

36

The values of

and

were varied by keeping the product

and

as

constant. The solutions were compared to the analytical solutions and the error
was calculated as

(3.6)

where

is the number of internal points in the cross section and

are the normalized analytical and numerical solutions. The numerical solution is
taken at a down-stream length of

from the entrance for all the grids. With

, for the Reynolds number to be

. Different combinations of

, the value of

is

giving this value are show below in

the table
Table 3.2: Table showing the combinations of width and velocity (for
) for a velocity driven Poiseulle flow

The convergence coefficient is calculated by

(3.7)

37

where

is the number of points in the dense grid and

points on the coarse grid.

is the number of

are the associated errors.

The table below shows the errors associated

Table 3.3: Table showing the study of convergence factor
Grid Points

Convergence factor

Error

Grid Points vs. Error

4.5000E-04
4.3000E-04
4.1000E-04

Error

3.9000E-04
3.7000E-04
3.5000E-04
3.3000E-04
3.1000E-04
2.9000E-04
2.7000E-04
2.5000E-04
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Grid Points
Figure 3-5: Figure showing the plot of error vs. number of grid points at
the channel entrance.
By verifying the convergence it can be seen that the solver is indeed second order
accurate in spatial dimension as stated in Section 2.3.3.

38

3.4

Pressure driven Poiseulle Flow

The flow between parallel plates driven by a pressure difference was

solved using the incompressible D2Q9 model. The following parameters were
used for the study. Unlike the velocity driven flow where the physical units are
transformed into lattice units, in this test case the parameters were directly taken
in lattice units for simplicity.
Table 3.4: Table showing the parameters for pressure driven Poiseulle
flow
Inlet
Pressure

Exit
Pressure

Channel
Width

Channel
Length

Relaxation
Time

Kinematic
Viscosity

0.33333

3.4.1 Boundary Conditions

Zou-He pressure boundary conditions are implemented at both the ends
of the channel. The densities corresponding to the pressures were calculated
using the equation of state Eq. (2.35) as

and

. The bounce

back method was used to achieve the no-slip condition on both walls. As
discussed in the section 3.2.3, a correction method was adopted to account for the
resultant wall produced at half way between the wall and the fluid node. The
average fluid density

was chosen for the simulation.

39

3.4.2 Analytical Solution

The analytical solution for a pressure driven Poiseulle flow is given by the
equations shown below.
The maximum centre line velocity is given as
(3.8)

where,

is the length of the channel and

is the average fluid density. The

velocity profile is given by

(3.9)

3.4.3 Results
The results are taken after the residual calculated is in the order of

Residual Plot
1.00E+01

log(residual)

1.00E-01
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
1.00E-07
1.00E-09
1.00E-11
1.00E-13
1000

11000

21000

31000

41000

51000

Time Steps
Figure 3-6: Figure showing the residual plot for pressure driven Poiseulle
flow.

40

For this case, after around

time steps, the residual approached the order of

. Figure 3-6 shows the plot of residual against time steps.

Figure 3-7 below shows the steady state flow in a pressure driven flow in
a channel. The maximum centre line velocity was achieved in the centre of the
channel. Also, the no-slip condition was achieved on the walls. The inlet and exit
pressures are exactly as the imposed conditions.

Figure 3-7: Figure showing the velocity

distribution in a channel
with pressure difference. Velocities are by color.

Figure 3-8 shows the smooth transition from high density to low density
(corresponds to high pressure to low pressure through equation of state). This is
achieved because of the incompressible model used. A comparison was made
between the analytical and numerical solution in the Figure 3-9. It is observed
that the numerical results are in good agreement with the analytical results. Also,
the maximum velocity calculated according to the Eq. (3.8) is achieved. This case
benchmarks the inlet and exit pressure boundary conditions.

41

Figure 3-8: Figure showing the density

driven Poiseulle flow.

variation in pressure

Velocity (lu/ts)

Analytical v.s. Numerical

0.09

Analytical

0.08

x=10

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

Y Position
Figure 3-9: Comparison between the analytical and numerical solution in a
pressure driven Poiseulle flow. The numerical solution is in
complete agreement with the analytical solution for the
Pressure driven Poiseulle flow solved with D2Q9
Incompressible model.
42

3.5

Flow over a Cylinder (Re=100)

Flow over a cylinder between two parallel plates was solved using the

incompressible D2Q9 LBM. The geometrical specifications of the channel and the
cylinder are shown in Figure 3-10. The results were compared with the work of
Schafer and Turek [26] who studied the laminar flow over a cylinder for similar
kind of geometry. The dimensions are given in terms of the radius of the
cylinder. For simplicity, the system of units chosen was lattice units.

Figure 3-10: Figure showing the geometrical specifications for flow over a
cylinder.

3.5.1 Parameters
Flow parameters and their derivations are given in the table below.
Table 3.5: Table showing the parameters for flow over a cylinder

Units
Value

40

43

Distance from centre to lower wall

Distance from centre to upper wall
Length of the channel
Width of the channel
Number of grid points in

direction

Number of grid points in

direction

Kinematic Viscosity
Dimensionless relaxation time

Inlet Velocity Profile

Velocity (lu/ts)

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
1

26

51

76

101

126

151

176

201

226

251

276

301

326

Y Direction
Figure 3-11: Inlet parabolic velocity profile with an average velocity of
for flow over a cylinder
The channel has a parabolic inlet velocity profile with average inlet flow velocity
as

44

The parabolic inlet velocity profile is calculated as (see Figure 3-11)

(3.10)

3.5.2 Boundary Conditions

Bounce back boundary conditions were used on the channel walls and on
the cylinder nodes.

Zou-He velocity condition was used to implement the

parabolic velocity profile at the inlet. The outlet condition is same as the one
implemented for the velocity driven Poiseulle flow.

3.5.3 Results
Figure 3-12, 3-13 shows the instantaneous

velocity contours in the

channel. The vortex shedding can be clearly seen downstream of the cylinder.

Figure 3-12: Instantaneous

cylinder.

velocity

45

contours for flow over a

Figure 3-13: Instantaneous

cylinder.

velocity

contours in the vicinity of the

Coefficient of Drag

Coefficient of Drag

3.40
3.22<Cd<3.24 Reference [23]

3.32
3.24
3.16
3.08
3.00
165000

169000

173000

177000

181000

185000

Time (ts, lattice units)

Figure 3-14: Coefficient of drag,
, for flow
(asymmetrically placed in the channel)

46

over

cylinder

The coefficient of drag is plotted in Figure 3-14. It can be observed that

there are two peaks for the drag coefficient here. Similar kind of plot with two
peaks can be observed in references [27] [28] for flow over a cylinder placed
asymmetrically in a channel. The peaks

and

fall within

of the range

given by Schaufer and Turek [26].

It was suspected that the two peaks of

are due to the asymmetry of the

position of the cylinder in the channel. To verify this, a case with no asymmetry
was studied and it can be observed in Figure 3-15 that there is only one peak
value for

.
Co-efficient of Drag

Co-efficiemt of Drag

3.40
3.32
3.24
3.16
3.08
3.00
289500

292000

294500

297000

299500

Time (ts, lattice units)

Figure 3-15: Co-efficient of Drag
for flow over
(symmetrically placed in the channel)

cylinder

The parameters used for this simulation are same except that the radius
and the distance of centre of cylinder from both walls was
corresponding value of the dimensionless relaxation time
47

is

. The

. The peak

value of the drag coefficient obtained in this case is

value is

and the minimum

The coefficient of lift

was plotted for the first (asymmetric) case and it

was observed that it is fluctuating with a mean slightly less than zero. Again, the
mean being non-zero is due to the asymmetry of the position of the cylinder in
the channel. The maximum of the lift coefficient achieved
range

is within the

as given in the reference [26].

Coefficient of Lift

Coefficient of Lift

1.55

1.0084

1.10
0.65
0.20
-0.25
-0.70
-1.15
-1.60
165000

-1.0416
169000

173000

177000

181000

185000

Time (ts, lattice units)

Figure 3-16: Co-efficient of Lift
for flow over a cylinder (asymmetrically
placed in the channel)
The frequency of the vortex shedding is determined by the Strouhal
number given as
(3.11)

where

is the diameter of the cylinder,

is the average inlet flow velocity and

is the frequency of the vortex shedding. This frequency of vortex shedding was
48

determined from the plot of the lift coefficient against time, averaging the peak to
peak time difference . The frequency was found as
(3.12)

The Strouhal number calculated for this model was

range

which is in the

given in the reference [26]. The vorticity distribution in the

channel is presented in Figure 3-17. It can be seen that vortices are formed
downstream of the cylinder.

Figure 3-17: Vorticity for the flow over a cylinder. The pattern for vorticity
can be observed in the figure.
The cylinder boundary is not exactly smooth; it is a stair-case like approximation
to the curved cylinder boundary. The no-slip condition was used on the cylinder
nodes. Another option was to use a curved boundary condition which is based
on the interpolation/extrapolation of the distribution functions. This case of the
flow over the cylinder validates the code for solving unsteady flows. Also, this
test case reassures the functionality of the inlet velocity condition and no-slip
condition. It also validates the approach used to approximate curved wall
boundaries.
49

Chapter 4
Multi-Phase LBM
4.1

Introduction
In this case, multiphase refers to phenomenon where a fluid separates into

different phases. This phase change might be triggered due to various factors
such as change in temperature, pressure, geometry etc. Statistical mechanics and
the underlying thermodynamics makes it easy for the LBM to deal with the
phase changes which otherwise is complicated to model using the conventional
CFD techniques. There are various multiphase models existing using the LBM,
such as Chromodynamic model [29], Shan-Chen Model [30] [31], Free energy
model [32] [33] and HSD model [34]. Shan-Chen model is based on incorporating
the long-range attractive forces between the distribution functions.

4.2

Shan-Chen Model
This model is based on incorporating the attraction force

between the

distribution functions. In the original Shan-Chen model the interaction force is

approximated using the following equation [30] [31]

50

(4.1)

where

is the number of nearest sites with equal distance ,

of the space (2 in our case) and

is the dimension

is the temperature like term. Other neighboring

sites (next nearest) can be considered in the Eq. (4.1) if the term

is

evaluated properly [35]. More generally, the equation can be written as [35]
(4.2)

For a D2Q9 model there are four sites which are at a distance of one lattice unit
and other four sites which are at a distance of

lattice units away from the site

where the interaction force needs to be calculated. Hence the value of

is given

as
(4.3)

Various forms of the interaction force can be developed from formulating the
[35]. One widely used formulation with a six point scheme to evaluate the
divergence term for the interaction force for a D2Q9 model is given as
(4.4)

where

is the interaction strength,

are the weights for LBM model and

is

the interaction potential which is a function of density. In the summation given

by Eq. (4.4), the values of

are considered only if

51

is a fluid node.

For

the force calculated is positive, which accounts for an attraction force.

This attractive force is incorporated [36] into the existing model as follows:
(4.5)

Where

is the change in velocity due to the additional force term. The change

in velocity is then added to the equilibrium velocity (velocity used in calculating

the equilibrium distribution functions)
(4.6)

The intermediate velocity

is used in calculating the equilibrium distribution

functions. The final macroscopic velocity

is calculated as
(4.7)

With the incorporation of the additional forcing term the algorithm of the
existing LBM model is changed slightly. Additional subroutines are used to
calculate the interaction potential

and the interaction force . It can be shown

that the Equation of State of the fluid simulated with the incorporation force as
mentioned in Eq. (4.4) is [37]
(4.8)

in lattice units,
(4.9)

52

The above equation varies for different types of interaction potential functions
. One such function proposed by Shan-Chen [30] is
(4.10)

where

and

are arbitrary constants. With this interaction potential the

equation of state becomes [36]

(4.11)

The equation of state given above has a non-ideal component. With this
equation, for values of pressure below the critical value, two phases (

) can

co-exist [36].
The critical values of the equation of state are given by equating the first
and second derivatives of pressure with density equal to zero. Considering the
equation of state Eq. (4.11)
(4.12)

(4.13)

By solving the above two equations the critical values are given as
(4.14)

(4.15)

53

The critical values for the equation of state with

are

. The critical values are marked in dashed lines in Figure 4-1.

Equation of State for SC-Model
100

G=-50
G=-70

Pressure

80

G=-92.4
G=-120

60

G=-150

40
20
0
-20
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Density
Figure 4-1: Equation of State for Shan-Chen model with
given by Eq.
(4.11) and
. The units of density are
and
pressure are

4.3

. This figure is given in reference [36]

Validation
To perform a validation check on the code a

lattice with periodic

boundary conditions on all sides was chosen. The domain is initialized with a
density of

, where

is a random number between

and

. This

initial randomization is necessary to create the imbalance between the forces

which account for the phase separation [36]. The total number of time steps
required for the domain to phase separate into a single liquid droplet

54

surrounded by vapor or vice versa is dependent on the randomization, i.e., for

smaller
and

values the number of time steps is larger. Values of

are used in this simulation. The normalized density plots at

various time steps were captured. It can be observed that the domain phase
separates. These results shown in Figure 4-2 are in good agreement with the
results shown in the reference [36]. The dark portion corresponds to the density
of liquid and the white portion corresponds to the density of the vapor.

Figure 4-2: Normalized density pictures at various time steps

randomization variable is between
.

. The

A similar test case was run with a smaller randomization variable , between
and . Though the final results are the same, the time taken is more in this case.
The results can be seen in Figure 4-3.

55

Figure 4-3: Normal density pictures at various time steps

. The
randomization variable is between and . The time taken in
this case is larger.

4.4

Fluid-Wall Interaction
The fluid wall interaction force is given by [38]
(4.16)

where

is the adsorption coefficient and

one if the node

is a function whose value is

is a wall and zero otherwise. Sukop and Thorne in their

book [36] have shown that different contact angles can be achieved between the
fluid and the surface by varying the value of

Table 4.1: Table showing the adsorption coefficient for contact angles.
Contact Angle

56

According to Sukop and Thorne [36], the values of

(with

) for

different contact angles is given in the Table 4.1. A validation case mentioned in
the reference [36] is run to check if the simulation code is working for the contact
angles. A similar test case as in section 4.3 was performed except a wall placed in
between the domain was run for this purpose. The initial densities (with random
variations) chosen in the simulations for contact angles

are

respectively. Figure 4-4 shows the results obtained.

Figure 4-4: Normalized density pictures for various contact angles. The
contact angles are
in order.
The results shown above are in agreement with the results shown in the
reference [36].

4.5

Parabolic Slider Bearing

To observe the phenomenon of multiphase in the slider bearing, the

domain was initialized with a density of

number between

and

, where

is a random

. This density falls in the unstable portion of the

equation of state for

. The slider wall was given a

57

velocity and it was studied if the liquid droplets move because of the velocity
imparted by the slider. This test case was performed as a basic check for the
combination of moving wall boundary condition with the multiphase model.
Periodic boundary conditions were implemented on the left and right part of the
domain. Zou-He velocity condition was implemented on the slider and the NoSlip condition was implemented on the wall nodes.

Slider

Figure 4-5: Figure showing the geometry of the slider bearing.

As shown in the Figure 4-5, the slider was given a velocity of

in the

direction. The parameters used for this simulation are given in the Table 4.2
below.
Table 4.2: Table showing the parameters for Slider Bearing test case

4.5.1 Results
58

Normalized density plots at various time steps were generated and it was
observed that as expected, for
contact angle of

, the liquid droplets formed have a

degrees. Also, since periodic boundary conditions are used

on inlet and the exit, the liquid droplets exit from the right and enter through left
because of the velocity imparted by the slider. In the Figure 4-6 it can be
observed that the liquid droplets in the vicinity of the slider move from left to
right, while in the same time the liquid droplets coalesce.

Figure 4-6: Figure showing the normalized density in the Slider Bearing at
various time steps.

An interesting condensation phenomenon was observed in the region of

high pressure. This phenomenon is seen in Figure 4-7. The high pressure region
for this geometry is located on the left side in the vicinity of the curved bearing.

59

Condensation

Figure 4-7: Figure showing condensation in high pressure region in Slider

Bearing.

High pressure region

Figure 4-8: Figure showing the high pressure region in the parabolic slider
bearing.

To show that the particular region where the condensation is occurring

has indeed higher pressures, a test case with same geometry and simulation
60

parameters was run without the multiphase model (no interaction forces). The
pressure contours obtained due to the movement of the slider is shown in Figure
4-8. It was observed that the higher pressure region was in the location where the
condensation was occurring in the multiphase simulation. The multiphase
dynamics is different from the single phase dynamics, but this test case gives an
intuitive correlation.

61

Chapter 5
Conclusions & Future Work
Literature review was done on Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM). Various
aspects such as derivation of the Lattice Boltzmann Equation, boundary
conditions, multiphase models were studied. The model with BGK collision, two
dimension and nine discrete velocities, D2Q9 was chosen. Initially, the equations
were

programmed

in

FORTRAN90

to

simulate

single

phase

flows

(incompressible). The code written is a serial code which calls different

subroutines whenever required. These subroutines were optimized for
performance using function profiling. The inbuilt profiling tools in the Intel
Visual Fortran were used for this purpose. The propagation function which took
more time relative to other subroutines is optimized for performance using
OpenMP. Though the propagation function is optimized for performance, for the
grid sizes used in this work it was observed that the code without the OpenMP
takes less time due to the overhead of creating and killing threads in each
iteration. In future work instead of using the OpenMP on specific function, the

62

grid can be divided into different blocks and MPI can be used. The code
developed was validated for single phase with standard test cases:

Velocity driven Poiseulle flow was solved using the code developed. It was
observed that the numerical solution is in agreement with the analytical
solution. To check for the order of accuracy, in this test case the grid points
were varied by keeping the Reynolds number as constant. The order of
accuracy was

as expected. The velocity inlet condition and no-slip wall

condition are benchmarked using this test case.

As a second test case, pressure driven Poiseulle flow was solved. The
numerical results obtained are compared to the analytical solution and it
was observed that there was no deviation from the analytical solution.
Constant pressure boundary conditions are benchmarked in this test case.

Flow over a cylinder with Reynolds number

was chosen as the third

test case. The cylinder was placed asymmetrically in the channel. The drag,
lift coefficients and the Strouhal number were obtained from the results.
The results produced agree very well with the results in the literature. It
was observed that there are two peaks for the drag coefficient. It was
assumed that this behavior is because of the asymmetry in the position of
the cylinder in the channel. To verify this, a test case with the cylinder
placed exactly in the centre of the channel was modeled and showed that
there was only one peak for the drag coefficient. Confirming the initial
assumption, the lift coefficient too had the mean lift slightly less than zero,
63

which again was a consequence of the asymmetry of the position of the

cylinder in the channel. The no-slip condition was used on the cylinder
nodes.
The Shan-Chen model for multiphase was incorporated into the code. The
test cases mentioned in the reference [36] were chosen for validation:

A square domain with periodic boundary conditions on all sides was

chosen and initialized with density chosen from the unstable portion of the
equation of state (see Figure 4-1). It was observed that the domain phase
separate as mentioned in the reference [36]. It was also observed that the
time taken for phase separation depend on the randomization of the initial
density.

To validate the code for contact angle dynamics, a square domain with a
wall placed in the centre was chosen. Periodic boundary conditions on all
sides were chosen for this case too. It was observed that, as mentioned in
the reference [36], that the contact angles produced as expected by varying
the adsorption coefficient.
To observe the phenomenon of multiphase flow in a slider bearing, the

domain was initialized with a random density which falls in the unstable portion
of the equation of state. The slider wall was given a velocity and it was studied if
the liquid droplets moved because of the velocity imparted by the slider. It was
observed that the velocity was imparted by the slider to the liquid droplets. It
was also observed that condensation occurs in the highest pressure region.
64

Though only one equation of state was modeled in this code, other
equations of state can be incorporated by simply replacing interaction potential
function

as mentioned in the reference [35]. The future work is dependent

on modeling the physical fluid using parameters such as interaction strength,

interaction potential and adsorption coefficient of the multiphase model.

65

References
[1]
John, D. Anderson, Jr., Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with
Application, McGraw Hill, 1995
[2]
Courant, R., Friedrichs, K., and Lewy, H., On the partial difference
equations of mathematical physics, IBM Journal of Research and Development,
vol. 11, 1967, pp. 215-234
[3]

Mohamad, A, A., Lattice Boltzmann Method, 1st Edition, Springer, 2011

[4]
Chen, S., Doolen, G. D., Lattice Boltzmann Method for Fluid Flows,
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 30, 1998, pp. 329-364
[5]
Hardy, J., Pomeau, Y., and de Pazzis, O., Time Evolution of a Two
Dimensional Classical Lattice System, Physical Review Letters, vol. 31, no. 5,
1973, pp. 276-279
[6]
Hardy, J., Pomeau, Y., and de Pazzis, O., Time Evolution of a Two
Dimensional model system. I. Invariant states and time correlation functions,
Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 2, 1973, pp. 1746-1759
[7]
Frish, U., Hasslacher, B., Pomeau, Y., Lattice-Gas Automata for the
Navier-Stokes Equation, Physical Review Letters, vol. 56, no. 14, 1986, pp. 15051508
[8]
DHumires, D., Lallemand, P., Lattice Gas Automata for Fluid
Mechanics, Physica A, vol. 140, 1986, pp. 326-335
[9]
Balasubramanian, K., Hayot, F., Saam, W. F., Darcys law from lattice-gas
hydrodynamics , Physical Review A, vol. 36, no. 5, 1987, pp. 2248-2253

66

[10] MacNamara, G. R., Zanetti, G., Use of the Boltzmann Equation to

simulate Lattice-Gas Automata, Physical Review Letters, vol. 61, no. 20, 1988,
pp. 2332-2335
[11] Dahlburg, J. P., Montgomery, D., Noise and compressibility in lattice-gas
fluids, Physical Review A, vol. 36, no. 5, 1987, pp. 2471-2474
[12] Wolf-Gladrow, D. A., Lattice-gas cellular automata and lattice Boltzmann
models, Springer, 2000
[13]

Online, http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/kinetic_theory.html

[14] Chapman, S., Cowling, T. G., The Mathematical Theory of Non-Unifrom

Gases, 3rd Edition, The Cambride University Library, 1970
[15] Bhatnagar, P. L., Gross, E. P., Krook, M., A Model for Collision Process in
Gases. I. Small Amplitude Processes in Charged and Neutral One-Component
Systems, Physical Review, vol. 94, no. 3, 1954, pp. 511-525
[16] Sterling, J. D., Chen, S., Stability Analysis of Lattice Boltzmann Models,
Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 123, article no. 16, 1996, pp. 196-206
[17] He, X., Luo, L.-S., Theory of lattice Boltzmann method: From the
Boltzmann equation to the lattice Boltzmann equation, Physical Review E, vol.
56, no. 6, 1997, pp. 6811-6817
[18] Inamuro, T., Yoshino, M., Ogino, F., Accuracy of the lattice Boltzmann
method for small Knudsen number with finite Reynolds number, Physics of
Fluids, vol. 9, 1997, pp. 35353542
[19] Qian, Y. H., DHumires, D., Lallemand, P., Lattice BGK Models for
Navier-Stokes Equation, Europhysics Letters, vol. 17, no. 6, 1992, pp. 479-484
[20] Yu, D., Mei, R., Luo, L.-S., Shyy, W., Viscous flow computations with the
method of lattice Boltzmann equation, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 39,
no. 5, 2003, pp. 329-367
[21]

Online, http://www.palabos.org/wiki/models:bc

67

[22] Cornubert, R., DHumires, D., Levermore, D., A Knudsen number

theory for lattice gases, Physica D, vol. 47, 1991, pp. 241-259
[23] Zou, Q., He, X., On pressure and velocity boundary conditions for the
lattice Boltzmann BGK model, Physics of Fluids, vol. 6, 1997, pp. 1591-1598
[24] He, X., Luo, L.-S., Lattice Boltzmann Model for Incompressible NavierStokes Equation, Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 88, no. 3/4, 1997, pp. 927-944
[25]

Online, OpenMp. [Online] http://openmp.org/wp/

[26] Schafer, M., Turek, S., Benchmark computations of laminar fow over a
cylinder, Notes in Numerical Fluid Mechanics, vol. 52. Vieweg Verlag:
Braunschweig, 1996; pp. 547566
[27] Yu, D., Mei, R., Shyy, W., A multi-block lattice Boltzmann method for
viscous fluid flows, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol.
39, 2002, pp. 99-120
[28] Filippova, O., Hanel, D., Grid refinement for Lattice-BGK Models,
Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 147, 1998, pp. 219-228
[29] Gunstensen, A. K., Rothman, D. H., Zaleski, S., Zanetti, G., Lattice
Boltzmann model for immiscible fluids, Physical Review A, vol. 43, no. 8, 1991,
pp. 4320-4327
[30] Shan, X., Chen, H., Lattice Boltzmann model for simulating flows with
multiple phases and components, Physical Review E, vol. 47, no. 3, 1993, pp.
1815-1819
[31] Shan, X., Chen, H., Simulation of nonideal gases and liquid-gas phase
transitions by the lattice Boltzmann equation, Physical Review E, vol. 49, no. 4,
1994, pp. 2941-2948
[32] Swift, M. R., Orlandini, E., Osborn, W. R., Yeomans, J. M., Lattice
Boltzmann Simulation of Nonideal fluids, Physical Review E, vol.75, no.5, 1995,
pp. 830-833

68

[33] Swift, M. R., Orlandini, E., Osborn, W. R., Yeomans, J. M., Lattice
Boltzmann simulations of liquid-gas and binary fluid systems, Physical Review
E, vol.54, no.5, 1996, pp.5041-5052
[34] He, X., Shan, X., Doolen, G. D., Discrete Boltzmann equation model for
nonideal gases, Physical Review E , vol.57, no.1, 1998, pp. R13-R16
[35] Yuan, P., Schaefer. L., Equations of State in a lattice Boltzmann model,
Physics of Fluids, vol. 18, 2006, pp. 042101-11
[36] He, X., Doolen, G. D., Thermodynamic Foundations of Kinetic Theory
and Lattice Boltzmann Models for Multiphase flows, Journal of Statistical
Physics, vol. 117, no. 112, 2002, pp. 309-328
[37] Sukop, M. C., Thorne, Jr. T., Lattice Boltzmann Modeling, 2nd Edition,
Springer, 2007
[38]
Martys, N., Chen, H., Simulation of multicomponent fluids in complex
three-dimensional geometries by the lattice Boltzmann method, Physical
Review E, vol. 53, no. 1, 1996, pp. 743-750

69