Advertisement

Journal of Hydrodynamics

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 654–668 | Cite as

An improved predictive-corrective incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics method for fluid flow modelling

  • Chong PengEmail author
  • Christoph Bauinger
  • Kamil Szewc
  • Wei Wu
  • Hui Cao
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Predictive-corrective incompressible smoothed particle hydrodynamics (PCISPH) is an efficient SPH variation originally developed for computer graphics. Its application in modeling physics-focused fluid flows has not yet been reported. In this work, an improved PCISPH method is presented for physics-focused fluid flow modeling. Different from traditional weakly-compressible SPH (WCSPH) and incompressible SPH (ISPH), PCISPH satisfies the incompressibility requirement at the particle level without a predefined equation of state. The pressure is obtained using an iterative predictive-corrective scheme at each individual particle. The presented PCISPH allows much larger time steps compared with WCSPH. It also avoids the time-consuming solution of Pressure Poisson Equation (PPE) in ISPH. Consequently, the PCISPH has high computational efficiency even with millions of computational particles. To ensure physically correct modeling of fluid flows, we employ several techniques to enhance the accuracy and stability of the PCISPH: (1) the continuity equation is used to predict density, replacing the mass summation approach used in the original PCISPH, (2) numerical diffusion and pressure smoothing are introduced to improve the pressure computation, (3) a generalized boundary treatment approach which can handle arbitrarily complex geometries is employed, (4) an adaptive time-stepping algorithm is used, allowing efficient simulation as well as ensuring stability. The performance of the improved PCISPH is systematically investigated using three standard SPH validation cases. Comparisons between the improved PCISPH and the state-of-the-art δ — SPH are presented. It is found that the improved PCISPH gives numerical results as accurate as δ — SPH, except for having moderate temporal pressure oscillations. However, the numerical results show that the improved PCISPH is approximately five times faster than δ — SPH. The improved PCISPH method shows to be a promising tool for large-scale three-dimensional fluid flow modeling.

Keywords

Smoothed particle hydrodynamics incompressibility predictive-corrective scheme high efficiency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Gomez-Gesteira M., Rogers B., Dalrymple R. et al. State-of-the-art of classical SPH for free-surface flows [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 2010, 48(S1): 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Deb D., Pramanik R. Failure process of brittle rock using smoothed particle hydrodynamics [J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2013, 139(11): 1551–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Pastor M., Haddad B., Sorbino G. et al. A depth-integrated, coupled SPH model for flow-like landslides and related phenomena [J]. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2009, 33(2): 143–172.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Monaghan J. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics [J]. Reports on Progress in Physics, 2005, 68(8): 1703.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Islam M. R. I., Peng C. A Total Lagrangian SPH method for modelling damage and failure in solids [J]. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2019, 157–158: 498–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Liu M., Liu G., Zong Z. et al. Computer simulation of high explosive explosion using smoothed particle hydrodynamics methodology [J]. Computers and Fluids, 2003, 32(3): 305–322.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Peng C., Guo X., Wu W. et al. Unified modelling of granular media with smoothed particle hydrodynamics [J]. Acta Geotechnica, 2016, 11(6): 1231–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Chow A. D., Rogers B. D., Lind S. J. et al. Incompressible SPH (ISPH) with fast Poisson solver on a GPU [J]. Computer Physics Communications, 2018, 226: 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Szewc K., Pozorski J., Minier J. Analysis of the incompressibility constraint in the smoothed particle hydrodynamics method [J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2012, 92(4): 343–369.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Solenthaler B., Pajarola P. Predictive-corrective incompressible SPH [J]. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2009, 28: 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Adami S., Hu X., Adams N. A generalized wall boundary condition for smoothed particle hydrodynamics [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2012, 231(21): 7057–7075.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Basa M., Quinlan N., Lastiwka M. Robustness and accuracy of SPH formulations for viscous flow [J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2009, 60(10): 1127–1148.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Monaghan J. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics and its diverse applications [J]. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2012, 44: 323–346.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Antuono M., Colagrossi A., Marrone S. et al. Free-surface flows solved by means of SPH schemes with numerical diffusive terms [J]. Computer Physics Communications, 2010, 181(3): 532–549.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Ihmsen M., Akinici N., Gissler M. et al. Boundary handling and adaptive time-stepping for PCISPH [C]. Seventh Workshop on virtual reality interaction and physical simulation VRIPHYS 2010, Copenhagen, Demark, 2010.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Crespo A., Dominguez M., Rogers B. et al. DualSPHysics: Open-source parallel CFD solver based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) [J]. Computer Physics Communications, 2016, 187: 204–216.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Yang J., Yang S., Chen Y. et al. Implicit weighted ENO schemes for the three-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 1998, 146(1): 464–487.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Khorasanizade S., Sousa J. A detailed study of lid-driven cavity flow at moderate Reynolds numbers using Incompressible SPH [J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2014, 76(10): 653–668.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Kleefsman K., Fekken G., Veldman A. et al. A volume-of-fluid based simulation method for wave impact problems [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2005, 206(1): 363–393.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Marrone S., Colagrossi A., Le Touzé D. et al. Fast free-surface detection and level-set function definition in SPH solvers [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2010, 229(10): 3652–3663.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Zhang C., Hu X., Adams N. A weakly compressible SPH method based on a low-dissipation Riemann solver [J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2017, 335: 605–620.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Zhan L., Peng C., Zhang B. et al. A stabilized TL-WC SPH approach with GPU acceleration for three-dimensional fluid structure interaction [J]. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2019, 86: 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Faltinsen O., Rognebakke O., Lukovsky I. et al. Multidimensional modal analysis of nonlinear sloshing in a rectangular tank with finite water depth [J]. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2000, 407: 201–234.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© China Ship Scientific Research Center 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chong Peng
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Christoph Bauinger
    • 1
  • Kamil Szewc
    • 1
  • Wei Wu
    • 2
  • Hui Cao
    • 1
  1. 1.ESS Engineering Software Steyr GmbHSteyrAustria
  2. 2.Institut für GeotechnikUniversität für BodenkulturViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations