Resolution sensitivity of momentum‐exchange and immersed boundary methods for solid–fluid interaction in the lattice Boltzmann method
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM), the mechanism of fluid–solid interaction can be effectively captured by appropriately enforcing the no‐slip conditions in shear direction, and bounce‐back of the non‐equilibrium distribution portion in the normal direction at fluid–solid interfaces. Among various solid–fluid interaction schemes being proposed for LBM in recent decades, two simple fluid–solid interaction methods—the momentum exchange algorithm (MEA) and the immersed boundary scheme (IBS)—were developed based on the above concept. In this paper, MEA and IBS are implemented in a D2Q9 LBGK system and applied to measure the wall correction factors of drag force upon a stationary circular particle midway in the Poiseuille channel flow at very low Reynolds number and drag coefficients at low to moderate Reynolds numbers. MEA and IBS are also employed to compare the fluid‐induced torque over the cylinder in the Taylor–Couette flow, and the steady velocity of a particle settling under the influence of gravity inside a tube. The above experiments show that IBS seems to be more accurate and less demanding on lattice resolution. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it