Comparison of existing and extended boundary conditions for the simulation of rarefied gas flows using the Lattice Boltzmann method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate imposition of boundary conditions (BCs) is of critical importance in fluid flow computation. This is especially true for the Lattice Boltzmann method (LBM), where BC imposition is done through operations on populations rather than directly on macroscopic variables. While the regular Cartesian structure of the lattices is an advantage for flow simulation through complex geometries such as porous media, imposition of correct BCs remains a topic of investigation for rarefied flows, where slip BCs need to be imposed. In this work, current kinetic BCs from the literature are reviewed for rarefied flows and an extended version of a technique that combines bounce-back and diffusive reflection (DBB BC) is proposed to solve such flows that exhibit effective viscosity gradients. The extended DBB BC is completely local and addresses ambiguities as regards to the definition of boundary populations in complex geometries. Numerical tests of a rarefied flow through a slit were performed, confirming the intrinsic second-order convergence of the proposed extended DBB BC. It settles a long-standing debate regarding the convergence of BCs in rarefied flows. Good agreement was also found with existing numerical schemes and experimental data.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".