Comparison of free-surface and conservative Allen-Cahn phase-field lattice Boltzmann method

TL;DR

This paper compares free-surface and conservative Allen-Cahn phase-field lattice Boltzmann methods for modeling two-phase flows, highlighting their respective strengths, limitations, and accuracy through various benchmark simulations.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive comparison of FSLBM and PFLBM, including their properties, performance, and suitability for different flow scenarios.

Findings

PFLBM accurately simulates flows dominated by surface tension.

FSLBM requires lower resolution than PFLBM in most cases.

FSLBM predicts bubble shape and velocity accurately at low resolution.

Abstract

This study compares the free-surface lattice Boltzmann method (FSLBM) with the conservative Allen-Cahn phase-field lattice Boltzmann method (PFLBM) in their ability to model two-phase flows in which the behavior of the system is dominated by the heavy phase. Both models are introduced and their individual properties, strengths and weaknesses are thoroughly discussed. Six numerical benchmark cases were simulated with both models, including (i) a standing gravity and (ii) capillary wave, (iii) an unconfined rising gas bubble in liquid, (iv) a Taylor bubble in a cylindrical tube, and (v) the vertical and (vi) oblique impact of a drop into a pool of liquid. Comparing the simulation results with either analytical models or experimental data from the literature, four major observations were made. Firstly, the PFLBM selected was able to simulate flows purely governed by surface tension with reasonable accuracy. Secondly, the FSLBM, a sharp interface model, generally requires a lower resolution than the PFLBM, a diffuse interface model. However, in the limit case of a standing wave, this was not observed. Thirdly, in simulations of a bubble moving in a liquid, the FSLBM accurately predicted the bubble's shape and rise velocity with low computational resolution. Finally, the PFLBM's accuracy is found to be sensitive to the choice of the model's mobility parameter and interface width.