Mechanism-Resolved Interface Momentum Transfer in Immersed-Boundary Lattice Boltzmann Simulations
Abstract
Immersed-boundary lattice Boltzmann (IB-LBM) simulations of cylinder and particle flows are usually compared by ranking boundary-enforcement schemes, kernels, and collision models. Such comparisons can obscure the mechanism that controls each response. Here, canonical fixed-cylinder, oscillating-cylinder, and sedimenting-particle cases are used as controlled probes of Eulerian-Lagrangian interface momentum transfer. For prescribed bodies, differences among direct forcing (DF), multi-direct forcing (MDF), and distribution-function correction (DFC) are most clearly discriminated by local no-slip fidelity rather than by a universal drag ranking. For DFC, the kernel-dependent drag-coefficient ranking reversal between the hat and Peskin 4-point kernels is associated with the spatial redistribution of the marker-resolved correction and the resulting near-boundary slip and pressure deviation, rather than the total correction magnitude alone. For sedimenting particles, single-particle settling provides a moving-body baseline, whereas two-particle differential-density wake-interaction sedimentation shows the wake-exposed light particle to be comparatively more sensitive to the explicit internal-mass correction in the force evaluation, a configuration-dependent, finite-window moving-boundary closure response. Targeted two-relaxation-time (TRT) and central-moment multiple-relaxation-time (CM-MRT) collision controls remain secondary to the boundary and closure mechanisms within the tested regimes (prescribed-body comparisons at Re <= 200, two-dimensional, and the reported moving-particle cases). The resulting picture replaces a universal scheme ranking with a mechanism-resolved interpretation of IB-LBM interface momentum transfer.
Versions
Related
- Interface-resolved simulations of boiling heat transfer
- Improving the accuracy of the momentum-exchange method in lattice Boltzmann methods
- Going off the (momentum) grid: A simple implementation of noncold relics in linear Boltzmann solvers
- Residual Carleman lift for nonlinear lattice Boltzmann simulations
- Improved lattice Boltzmann method for conjugate magnetohydrodynamic simulations
BibTeX
@misc{jo2026mechanismresolved,
title = {{Mechanism-Resolved Interface Momentum Transfer in Immersed-Boundary Lattice Boltzmann Simulations}},
author = {Hongju Jo},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.02298},
eprint = {2609.02298},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02298},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Mechanism-Resolved Interface Momentum Transfer in Immersed-Boundary Lattice Boltzmann Simulations
AU - Hongju Jo
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/02
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.02298
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02298
AB - Immersed-boundary lattice Boltzmann (IB-LBM) simulations of cylinder and particle flows are usually compared by ranking boundary-enforcement schemes, kernels, and collision models. Such comparisons can obscure the mechanism that controls each response. Here, canonical fixed-cylinder, oscillating-cylinder, and sedimenting-particle cases are used as controlled probes of Eulerian-Lagrangian interface momentum transfer. For prescribed bodies, differences among direct forcing (DF), multi-direct forcing (MDF), and distribution-function correction (DFC) are most clearly discriminated by local no-slip fidelity rather than by a universal drag ranking. For DFC, the kernel-dependent drag-coefficient ranking reversal between the hat and Peskin 4-point kernels is associated with the spatial redistribution of the marker-resolved correction and the resulting near-boundary slip and pressure deviation, rather than the total correction magnitude alone. For sedimenting particles, single-particle settling provides a moving-body baseline, whereas two-particle differential-density wake-interaction sedimentation shows the wake-exposed light particle to be comparatively more sensitive to the explicit internal-mass correction in the force evaluation, a configuration-dependent, finite-window moving-boundary closure response. Targeted two-relaxation-time (TRT) and central-moment multiple-relaxation-time (CM-MRT) collision controls remain secondary to the boundary and closure mechanisms within the tested regimes (prescribed-body comparisons at Re <= 200, two-dimensional, and the reported moving-particle cases). The resulting picture replaces a universal scheme ranking with a mechanism-resolved interpretation of IB-LBM interface momentum transfer.
ER -