Mass and momentum transfer across solid-fluid boundaries in the lattice-Boltzmann method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass conservation and momentum transfer across solid-fluid boundaries have been active topics through the development of the lattice-Boltzmann method. In this paper, we review typical treatments to prevent net mass transfer across solid-fluid boundaries in the lattice-Boltzmann method, and argue that such efforts are in general not necessary and could lead to incorrect results. Carefully designed simulations are conducted to examine the effects of normal boundary movement, tangential density gradient, and lattice grid resolution. Our simulation results show that the global mass conservation can be well satisfied even with local unbalanced mass transfer at boundary nodes, while a local mass conservation constraint can produce incorrect flow and pressure fields. These simulations suggest that local mass conservation, at either a fluid or solid boundary node, is not only an unnecessary consequence to maintain the global mass conservation, but also harmful for meaningful simulation results. In addition, the concern on the momentum addition and reduction associated with status-changing nodes is also not technically necessary. Although including this momentum addition or reduction has no direct influence on flow and pressure fields, the incorrect fluid-particle interaction may affect simulation results of particulate suspensions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".