BGK model
Qisu Zou
Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
and Department of Mathematics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Xiaoyi He
Center for Nonlinear Studies and Theoretical Biology and Biophysics Group, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
~Received 10 August 1995; accepted 24 February 1997!
Pressure ~density! and velocity boundary conditions are studied for 2-D and 3-D lattice Boltzmann
BGK models ~LBGK! and a new method to specify these conditions is proposed. These conditions
are constructed in consistency with the wall boundary condition, based on the idea of bounceback
of the non-equilibrium distribution. When these conditions are used together with the
incompressible LBGK model @J. Stat. Phys. 81, 35 ~1995!# the simulation results recover the
analytical solution of the plane Poiseuille flow driven by a pressure ~density! difference. The
half-way wall bounceback boundary condition is also used with the pressure ~density! inlet/outlet
conditions proposed in this paper and in Phys. Fluids 8, 2527 ~1996! to study 2-D Poiseuille flow
and 3-D square duct flow. The numerical results are approximately second-order accurate. The
magnitude of the error of the half-way wall bounceback boundary condition is comparable with that
of other published boundary conditions and it has better stability behavior. © 1997 American
Institute of Physics. @S1070-6631~97!03406-5#
Phys. Fluids 9 (6), June 1997 1070-6631/97/9(6)/1591/8/$10.00 © 1997 American Institute of Physics 1591
ity. The form of the error terms and the derivation of these
equations can be found in Refs. 13 and 14.
For the 2-D case, we will take Poiseuille flow as an
example to study the pressure ~density! or velocity inlet/
outlet condition. The analytical solution of Poiseuille flow in
a channel of width 2L is given by
FIG. 1. Schematic plot of velocity directions of the 2-D ~d2q9! model and
projection of the 3-D ~d3q15! model in a channel. In the 3-D model, The
S
u x 5u 0 12
y2
L2
, D u y 50,
]p
]x
52G,
]p
]y
50, ~6!
y-axis is pointing into the paper, so are velocity directions 3, 7, 9, 12, 14 where the pressure gradient G is a constant related to the
~they are in parentheses if shown!, while the velocity directions 4, 8, 10, 11,
13 are pointing out. Velocity directions 3, 4 have a projection at the center
centerline velocity u 0 by
and are not shown in the figure.
G52 rn u 0 /L 2 , ~7!
and the flow density r is a constant. The Reynolds number is
defined as Re 5 u 0 (2L)/ n .
1 Poiseuille flow is an exact solution of the steady-state
f i ~ x1 d ei ,t1 d ! 2 f i ~ x,t ! 52 @ f i ~ x,t ! 2 f ~i eq ! ~ x,t !# ,
t incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with constant den-
sity r 0 :
i50,1, . . . ,8, ~1!
¹•u50, ~8!
where the equation is written in physical units. Both the time
step and the lattice spacing have the value of d in physical
units. f i (x,t) is the density distribution function along the ] b ~ u a u b ! 52 ] a S D
p
r0
1 n] bb u a . ~9!
direction ei at (x,t). The particle speed ei ’s are given by
ei 5(cos(p(i21)/2),sin(p(i21)/2),i51,2,3,4, and The steady-state macroscopic equations of the LBGK model
ei 5 A2(cos(p(i242 21)/2),sin(p(i242 21)/2),i55,6,7,8. Rest are different from the incompressible Navier–Stokes equa-
particles of type 0 with e0 50 are also allowed ~see Fig. 1!. tions, Eqs. ~8! and ~9!, by terms containing the spatial de-
The right hand side represents the collision term and t is the rivative of r . These discrepancies are called compressibility
single relaxation time which controls the rate of approach to error in the LBE model. Thus, when pressure ~density! gra-
equilibrium. The density per node, r , and the macroscopic dient drives the flow, u x in a LBGK simulation increases in
flow velocity, u5(u x ,u y ), are defined in terms of the par- the x-direction, and the velocity profile is no longer para-
ticle distribution function by bolic. For a fixed Mach number (u 0 fixed!, as d →0, the
velocity of the LBGK simulation will not converge to the
8 8
velocity in Eq. ~6! because the compressibility error becomes
(
i50
f i5 r , (
i51
f i ei 5 r u. ~2! dominant. This makes the comparison of u x with the analyti-
cal velocity of Poiseuille flow somehow ambiguous.
The equilibrium distribution functions f (eq)
i (x,t) depend only To make a more accurate study of Poiseuille flow with
on local density and velocity and they can be chosen in the pressure ~density! or velocity flow boundary conditions, we
following form ~the model d2q911!: use the d2q9i incompressible LBGK model proposed in Ref.
F G
15, with the following equilibrium distributions:
9 3
f ~i eq ! 5t i r 113 ~ ei •u! 1 ~ ei •u! 2 2 u•u ,
4 1
2 2
1
F 9 3
f ~i eq ! 5t i r 13ei •v1 ~ ei •v! 2 2 v•v ,
2 2 G 4
t 05 ,
9
t 05 , t i5 , i51:4; t i5 , i55:8. ~3! 1 1
9 9 36
t i5 , i51:4; t i5 , i55:8 ~10!
9 36
A Chapman–Enskog procedure can be applied to Eq. ~1!
to derive the macroscopic equations of the model. They are and
given by the continuity equation @with an error term O( d 2 ) 8 8 8 8
being omitted#
(
i50
f i5 (
i50
f ~i eq ! 5 r , (
i51
f i ei 5 (
i51
f ~i eq ! ei 5v, ~11!
]r
1¹• ~ r u! 50, ~4! where v5( v x , v y ) ~like the momentum in the ordinary
]t
LBGK model! is used to represent the flow velocity. The
and the momentum equation @with terms of O( d 2 ) and macroscopic equations of d2q9i in the steady-state case
O( d u 3 ) being omitted# ~apart from error terms of O( d 2 )]
] t ~ r u a ! 1 ] b ~ r u a u b ! 52 ] a ~ c 2s r ! 1 ] b ~ 2 nr S ab ! , ~5! ¹•v50, ~12!
E5 0
0
F 0 1
0
0
21
0
0
0
1
0
21
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
21
1
1
1
21
21
21 21
1
1
21
21
1
21
1
1
21
21
1 21
21
1 21
G
1 ,
1
lx 8 16 32 64 128 order
ly 4 8 16 32 64
S D
condition. The ratio of two consecutive maximum relative `
16a 2 dp
errors is also shown. The order of convergence, from a least- u x ~ y,z ! 5
mp3
2
dx (
i51,3,5, . . .
~ 21 ! ~ i21 ! /2
squares fitting, is shown in the last column. For the cases of
Nos. 1, 2 with the half-way wall bounceback, the maximum
relative velocity errors are similar and the convergence rate F
3 12
cosh~ i p b/2a ! G
cosh~ i p z/2a ! cos~ i p y/2a !
i3
. ~40!
is consistent with second-order accuracy. The magnitude of
We use a5b52 in the simulations. Results of the following
the errors is close to that obtained using No. 3. The quantity
boundary conditions are reported.
Tol in Eq. ~38! is set to 1028 .
To study stability, we compared the 3 cases with a ~1! The flow boundary condition given in this paper with the
simple equilibrium scheme, which is known to be stable. half-way wall bounceback.
This scheme imposes the equilibrium distribution at the flow ~2! The flow boundary condition in Ref. 7 with the half-way
boundaries. In the simulation of Poiseuille flow with wall bounceback.
bounceback at the walls, using the equilibrium scheme to ~3! The flow and wall boundary conditions in Ref. 7.
~4! The flow and wall boundary conditions in Ref. 6.
prescribe velocity inlet and density outlet conditions, and
~5! The flow boundary condition in Ref. 7 with bounceback
with lx516,ly58, u 0 50.1. We obtained a maximum of Re
at wall nodes without collision.
500. Once any boundary condition or flow boundary condi-
tion in any of the schemes in2,5–7,18 or in this paper is used, Again, we fix t and the Reynolds number, vary d from
the maximum Re number is reduced dramatically. For ex- 1/2 to 1/16, to study convergence. Three examples are re-
ample, the maximum Re reduces to 63 and 56, respectively, ported in Table II. The quantity Tol in the 3-D version of
for cases No. 1 and No. 2. The maximum Re further reduces Eq. ~38! is set as 1028 . From Table II, we can see that Nos.
to 12 for case No. 3. It is also noted that when the parameters 1–4 all give an accuracy close to second order, and that the
errors with half-way wall bounceback are comparable to
are close to the region of instability, the simulation may have
those obtained using the boundary conditions in Refs. 7 and
unusual large errors.
6. On the other hand, bounceback without collision ~No. 5!
Simulations of 3-D square duct flow were performed us- introduces an error of first-order throughout the flow. Thus,
ing d3q15i and d3q15 with the pressure flow boundary con- half-way wall bounceback has different behavior than boun-
dition. Only the results for d3q15i are reported, since the ceback without collision.
results of d3q15 are similar. The analytical solution of It is noted that the order of convergence for 3-D duct
a flow in an infinitely long rectangular duct flow, with all boundary conditions, is lower than that for 2-D
2a<y<a,2b<z<b,with x being the flow direction is Poiseuille flows. For example, the ratios of errors at the high-
given by19 est resolution are not very close to 4 in some cases. It ap-
lx 8 16 32 64 order
ly,lz 4 8 16 32
No. 3 unstable
pears that in 3-D duct flow, the four edges pose additional from 0.6 to 1.2 in the simulations. The magnitude of the
difficulties to resolving the flow. Even with forcing, the den- error is comparable with that using some published boundary
sity is not uniform in a cross section for the half-way wall conditions.
bounceback or for boundary conditions in Refs. 7 and 6. We have also observed that the half-way wall bounce-
Nevertheless, the order of convergence for 3-D duct flow is back method is approximately second-order accurate for the
still close to 2. The half-way wall bounceback has a weaker channel flows considered, and conclude that it deserves seri-
convergence when t .1 while the boundary condition in ous consideration in a LBGK simulation.
Ref. 7 performs better as t .1 but worse as t ,1.
We would like to point out that a second-order accuracy ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
of the half-way wall bounceback in the flows considered
does not imply a second-order accuracy for any flows. The Discussions with R. Maier and R. Bernard are appreci-
statement can be applied to other boundary conditions as ated. Q. Z. would like to thank the Associated Western Uni-
well. One is encouraged to do some tests on a simplified flow versities, Inc. for providing a fellowship and to thank G.
of the type of flows to be simulated. Doolen and S. Chen for helping to arrange his visit to the
Los Alamos National Lab. Some computations are per-
formed on the Convex Exempler SPP-1000 of Kansas State
VI. DISCUSSIONS University. Q. Z. would like to thank National Science Foun-
In this paper we have derived boundary conditions for dation Grant No. DMR-9413513 which provided funds for
the incompressible LBGK models, d2q9i and d3q15i, using a the acquisition of the machine.
new way to specify flow boundary conditions based on boun-
ceback of the non-equilibrium distribution. For the test prob- 1
S. Succi, D. d’Humières, Y. Qian, and S. A. Orszag, ‘‘On the small-scale
lem of Poiseuille flow with pressure or velocity inlet/outlet dynamical behavior of lattice BGK and lattice Boltzmann schemes,’’ J.
Sci. Comput. 8, 219 ~1993!.
conditions, the new method recovers the analytic solution 2
D. R. Noble, S. Chen, J. G. Georgiadis, and R. O. Buckius, ‘‘A consistent
within machine accuracy, and it is approximately of second- hydrodynamic boundary condition for the lattice Boltzmann method,’’
order accuracy for the 3-D channel flows with t ranging Phys. Fluids 7, 203 ~1995!.