Abstract
Current approaches to Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) are computationally quite expensive for most realistic scientific and engineering applications of Fluid Dynamics such as automobiles or atmospheric flows. The Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM), with its simplified kinetic descriptions, has emerged as an important tool for simulating hydrodynamics. In a heterogeneous computing environment, it is often preferred due to its flexibility and better parallel scaling. However, direct simulation of realistic applications, without the use of turbulence models, remains a distant dream even with highly efficient methods such as LBM. In LBM, a fictitious lattice with suitable isotropy in the velocity space is considered to recover NavierStokes hydrodynamics in macroscopic limit. The same lattice is mapped onto a cartesian grid for spatial discretization of the kinetic equation. In this paper, we present an inverted argument of the LBM, by making spatial discretization as the central theme. We argue that the optimal spatial discretization for LBM is a Body Centered Cubic (BCC) arrangement of grid points. We illustrate an orderofmagnitude gain in efficiency for LBM and thus a significant progress towards feasibility of DNS for realistic flows.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Fluid dynamics simulations are an integral part of science and engineering applications. Such simulations are parameterized by a single nondimensional number — known as Reynolds number Re — which ranges from ~10^{−3} for many biological applications to ~10^{9} for atmospheric flows. The size of the grid required to resolve all lengthscales to perform DNS is often too high for realistic applications^{1}. In practice, applications of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to the physics of complex flows in the context of fluidstructure interaction often requires highly accurate and adaptive methods for complex geometries. Currently, it is widely accepted that DNS of separated turbulent flows will be feasible only after a decade^{2,3,4}. Indeed, recent studies have advocated the use of a hybrid approach where both Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes (RANS) are used in appropriate parts of the domain^{2,3}. Similarly for many biological applications — where one needs to perform simulation of suspensions — the resolution of nearfield hydrodynamics for particles requires an exorbitant number of grid points for DNS. Thus an algorithmic improvement which can make DNS feasible and realistic for hydrodynamic simulation is critically required.
For DNS of homogeneous turbulence, the most accepted methodology is PseudoSpectral (PS) method, which has spectral accuracy unmatched by alternative methods. However, it has relatively poor parallel scaling and is largely limited to periodic domains and to a few other simple geometries such as channel flow^{5}. Thus, in the last two decades, a number of algorithms such as LBM were developed for accelerating hydrodynamic simulations. LBM, with its simplified kinetic picture on a lattice is easily parallelizable and scalable. It is therefore an alternate numerical method for applications as wide ranging as fluid turbulence, polymer dynamics, density functional theory, soft matter etc.^{4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20}. Often it is argued that kinetic descriptions are inherently better suited for both complex flow phenomena such as turbulence and for modeling complex flow physics^{11,12,21,22}. In contrast to the pseudospectral method however, lower order models such as LBM often require more than twice number of grid points in every direction and thus, they require an orderofmagnitude (2 to 2.5 times in each direction) more number of grid points in 3D for the same accuracy. Nevertheless, in practice, LBM is competitive with respect to PS due to very high parallel efficiency and flexibility in handling complex geometries. Indeed, in a heterogeneous computing environment, LBM and PS are able to perform DNS at comparable Reynolds Numbers for simple flows^{4,23}. Thus similar to conventional CFD, one often needs to use explicit turbulence models for simulating relevant high Re applications^{6,24}. Thus to simulate realistic turbulent flows without any explicit turbulence model is farfetched even with efficient methods such as LBM. Similarly to study the collective dynamics of particles at low Reynolds Numbers, one needs to introduce pointparticle like models due to resolution constraints. For instance, even to resolve a simple shape such as a sphere at these Reynolds Numbers, ~20^{3} grid points are required.
Thus improving the accuracy of LBM, while keeping its parallel efficiency and large timestepping intact, is an important challenge. The only working methodology for improving the accuracy of LBM is to refine the grid near the solid body or in zones of extreme flow variations^{25,26}. A fundamental problem with such approaches is that the local accuracy of the method remains unchanged and optimization is done only with respect to the global distribution of grid points. For example, for decaying turbulence in a periodic geometry, local grid refinements cannot improve the accuracy of LBM.
Before describing our new method, we briefly summarize basic LBM algorithm. In any Mdimensional model (with M being 1, 2 or 3)^{20,27}, typically denoted by DMQN, one defines a set of N discrete velocities c_{i}, . To each discrete velocity a weight w_{i} > 0 is assigned such that .
The central quantity of interest in the method is the discrete population f_{i}(x, t), at the location x and time t. In Ddimensions, macroscopic quantities such as mass density ρ, momentum density ρu and energy density E ≡ (ρu^{2} + Dρθ)/2, with reduced temperature θ are,
Other higher order moments of physical interest are the pressure tensor P_{αβ} and the third order moment Q_{αβγ} defined as,
The nonequilibrium part of the pressure tensor is the stress tensor and the trace q_{α} ≡ Q_{αγγ} of the third order moment is related to the heat flux.
An important and relevant example of LBM is provided by the D3Q27 model for which the set of discrete velocities and the corresponding weights are given in Table 1.
Here we note that for standard LBM using the D2Q9 or the D3Q27 model, the lattice introduces an artificial closure,
The evolution equation for the populations f_{i} with the BhatnagarGrossKrook (BGK) model collision term is^{28},
where the discrete equilibrium is typically written as^{20},
with θ_{0} as the reference temperature and on any given lattice the weights satisfy the conditions,
These constraints on weights ensure that
For such models, the higher order moments are
Computational Method: Crystallographic Lattice Boltzmann Model
In this section, we introduce our new grid structure which drastically improves the performance of LBM without compromising its onlattice streaming and other computational efficiencies. We begin with the observation that the introduction of the staircase geometry, as done in LBM, is similar to the generation of a WignerSeitz cell for a given lattice structure^{29}. This is pictorially shown in Fig. 1. With this point of view, it becomes apparent that, out of all possible spacefilling arrangements, the Simple Cubic (SC) Lattice for space discretization used by LBM is not very efficient for representing local curvatures. Intuitively, one would expect an octahedron to be a better object in resolving local curvatures. Thus, a better choice for spatial grid distribution is a BodyCentered Cubic (BCC) arrangement of grid points for which the WignerSeitz cell is a truncated octahedron^{30}. To illustrate this point, we consider a rhombic grid in 2D. Figures 2 and 3 show that the discrete approximation of a circle is more accurate on the BCC grid than on an SC grid: the total number of boundary points are almost double.
For any given lattice, the links on the grid in Fig. 3 act as discrete velocities in LBM. It is also clear from Fig. 3 that, unlike previous attempts to design bodyfitted grids, with this lattice, we achieve better space coverage and also a unification of the discretization of space and velocities.
Based on this insight, we invert the argument of LBM and make spatial discretization the central point and decide the velocity space based on this discretization. We generalize the D3Q27 model on a BCC lattice by changing velocity vectors of type {±1, ±1, ±1} to {±1/2, ±1/2, ±1/2}. Hereafter, this model will be referred as the RD3Q27 model. The set of discrete velocities and corresponding weights are listed in Table 2. For the RD3Q27 lattice, the reference temperature changes to θ_{0} = 1/5 (see Eq. (6)). This procedure also removes some of the known artifacts associated with the velocity space discretization used in LBM. Finally, we demonstrate that these modifications improve the simulation efficiency by more than an orderofmagnitude. An alternate view point of the method is provided by entropic construction of LBM. In this formulation, one begins with a given Hfunction^{31,32,33} and construct equilibrium as the minimum of the Hfunction under constraints. Typically, one constructs an isothermal equilibrium, where energy conservation is ignored. It can be shown that the true entropic equilibrium is well approximated by Eq. (5) at least till order O(Ma^{2}), where Ma is the Mach number. In dimensions higher than one, it is also possible to create the energy conserving equilibrium which we will use later. On the RD3Q27 lattice, following Ansumali et al.^{33}, we choose to construct the energy conserving equilibrium as the minimizer of the Hfunction. The choice of the energy conserving equilibrium is largely dictated by the increased stability of those models^{34,35}. The explicit expression for the energy conserving equilibrium distribution function is:
This ensures the conservation of density (ρ), momentum density (ρu_{α}) and energy density (ρu^{2} + 3ρθ) during collision. The conserved quantities in terms of the equilibrium distribution function can be written as:
At θ = θ_{0}, the explicit expression for the equilibrium distribution function is:
The corresponding equilibrium stress tensor and heat flux vector are given by,
The better representation of extended hydrodynamics by present model can be seen by writing discrete moment chain. This moment chain is very similar to Grad’s equation of the form^{12,36,37}:
where and . The closure relations for the higher order moments R_{αβγκ} and N_{αβγ} written in terms of other moments are given in Supplementary Appendix A. For the present model, Q_{xxx}, Q_{yyy}, Q_{zzz} are independent variables and artificial closures as shown in the previous section (Eq. 3) do not exist. This happens because, in the diagonal direction c_{ix} is 1/2 rather than 1. Thus one can expect that RD3Q27 should show enhanced accuracy for finite Knudsen flows as compared to D3Q27^{38}. This setup provides a good indication of the convergence of the discrete velocity model towards the Boltzmann equation. Finally, following standard route of discretization along characteristic directions using trapezoidal rule^{20}, we can write fully discrete version of the kinetic Eq. 4 as
where β is the discrete relaxation time.
Notice this is similar to D3Q27 model, if we choose Δt = Δx, the advection happens from one lattice point to another and thus the method does not require any spatial interpolations. We recall that the BCC grid in 3D has an alternate interpretation in terms of replica of simple cubic grids displaced from each other by Δx/2 in each direction where Δx is the grid spacing.
Results
In this section, we present the results for standard canonical problems using the current RD3Q27 model. We first consider the planar Couette flow, a test problem for investigating the convergence of discrete velocity models towards the solution of the continuum BoltzmannBGK equation^{28}. In this setup, the fluid is enclosed between two parallel plates separated by a distance L. The bottom plate at y = −L/2 moves with a velocity U_{1} and top plate at y = L/2 moves with a velocity U_{2}. For such boundary value problems relevant to microflows, one uses the discrete version of diffused wall approximation in LBM^{12}. For this setup, it is known that the D3Q27 model has poor accuracy at finite Knudsen numbers (defined as ); it works reasonably well only for Kn < 0.1. It can be seen in Fig. 4, the results of the RD3Q27 and D3Q27 models are similar at low Kn (<0.1). Further, at high Kn, the shear stress predicted by RD3Q27 is in close agreement with the continuum BoltzmannBGK solution.
The solution for the dimensionless shear stress obtained by solving the moment chain for the RD3Q27 model is,
where is the shear stress at Kn → ∞ of the BoltzmannBGK model and is given by
It is evident that removing the artifact on the third moment has led to better agreement with the Boltzmann BGK values. Thus, unlike D3Q27 model, accuracy for the flows at finite Knudsen number has improved drastically. However unlike higher order LBM, kinetic boundary layer is not captured by the method.
To demonstrate the efficiency of this new framework for turbulence, we chose the setup of decaying turbulence starting with the Kida vortex initial condition^{4,23}. In this flow, starting with a smooth initial condition, the enstrophy (Ω) and the maximum vorticity show very rapid growth. Thus it is not surprising that, for this setup, the standard D3Q27 lattice Boltzmann model fails to make accurate predictions unless the number of grid points per direction is more than twice those for an equivalent spectral simulation.
In Fig. 5, the performance of our new BCC lattice based RD3Q27 velocity model is contrasted with the pseudospectral and the D3Q27 model for Re = 10,000. In the present model, Re is defined as, ρU_{0}/ν, where in the PS method Re = 1/ν as U_{0} = 1. It is evident from the results shown in Fig. 5 that our new method has drastically improved the performance of standard LBM. This gain can be understood in terms of the spectral representation of a bandwidthlimited function (i.e. whose Fourier coefficients are zero above a cutoff wavenumber). Essentially, for a fully resolved threedimensional simulation in a periodic geometry, a reasonable approximation is to assume that the functions to be modeled are isotropic and the resolution is bandwidth limited. This implies that, in Fourier space, there is no preferred direction and, hence, the efficient distribution of grid points is equivalent to the spherepacking problem^{30,39}. Thus the most efficient way to distribute points in the Fourier space is to arrange them as a FCC lattice. Consequently the best sampling lattice in real space is the BCC lattice, which is the dual of the FCC lattice^{30,39} in the Fourier space. Thus the numerical gain in simulation accuracy is associated with the efficient choice of the lattice.
It must be noted that the parallel and serial efficiency of this new model is very similar to the standard D3Q27 model. Thus for the first time, LB simulations are able to surpass higher order models such as the spectral method. Here we emphasize that this new route to increase accuracy is not an alternative to building higher order LBM for better accuracy^{23}. Indeed, by constructing higher order LB on BCC, the accuracy can be further improved.
Although RD3Q27 uses a grid of size 2N^{3} as compared to standard case of N^{3}, the performance gain is almost an orderofmagnitude. This happens because, for the same accuracy of simulation, the usual D3Q27 model requires a grid size of (MN)^{3}, where M ranges from 2–2.5. This implies that the saving in the number of grid points is in the range of (MN)^{3}/2(N)^{3}, which is 4–7.8 times. Hence the saving in time is (MN)^{4}/2(N)^{4} i.e., at least 8 times (on a coarser grid, the time steps are larger).
To demonstrate this gain in the capability of LBM, let us consider the classical problem of flow past a sphere^{40,41,42,43}. The simulations were performed for two different values of Re with Ma = 0.05 for D3Q27 and RD3Q27 models. The domain size, in terms of diameter D (measured in lattice unit), of 16D × 8D × 8D was used for Re = 50 and 20D × 10D × 10D for Re = 200. The simulations were performed on an Intel Xeon based system (CPU Model: E52670) with 16 cores. Figure 6 shows the percentage error (ε) in the mean value of from the experimental value of C_{D} = 1.59 for Re = 50 and C_{D} = 0.78 for Re = 200^{42}. From this figure, it is evident that RD3Q27 performs an orderofmagnitude better than D3Q27. This gain in performance can be seen more conveniently in Fig. 7, where percentage error (ε) is plotted against CPUtime(t in seconds). In this plot, one can see that for the same error, present method requires an orderofmagnitude less time when compared to D3Q27 LBM.
As the result for Re = 200 suggests that the computing requirement for present model is substantially lower than LBM, we performed this simulation of flow past sphere for a wide range of Reynolds numbers. To the best of our knowledge, none of the existing methods can predict the drag behavior over the wide range of Reynolds Numbers for which experimental data is available. In Figs 8 and 9 the drag coefficient C_{D}, predicted by present model is contrasted with the experimental result in Achenbach et al.^{40} and Bakic et al.^{44} with Re = UD/ν where D and U are the diameter and speed of the sphere in lattice units. The values of C_{D} for Re = 10^{5} and 3.18 × 10^{5} are depicted in Table 3. Figure 10 shows the variation of drag coefficient C_{D} with time at Re = 3.18 × 10^{5}. We have implemented a version of the diffuse bounceback rule as described in Krithivasan et al.^{45}, for the solidfluid interface at the body. For inletoutlet, we have used Grad’s closure approximation as described in Chikatamarla et al.^{46}. To highlight the reliability and robustness of our approach, the angular distribution of pressure coefficient on the surface of the sphere for Re = 10^{5} and Re = 1.62 × 10^{5} are presented in Fig. 11 and these are compared with the experimental data. It is evident from the plot that the quality of C_{P} prediction remains very good even with a sphere size of D = 160 (lattice points). Even for this size of grid, the error in mean value of C_{D} is only around 8%. Along with this paper, we have also provided a supplementary video 1 online where the temporal evolution of the azimuthal component of vorticity ω_{ϕ}, C_{P} and C_{D} are shown. Figure 12 shows a snapshot of the azimuthal component of vorticity. This also shows that our model captures the flow separation clearly. We believe that the reason for such good accuracy without a wellresolved boundary layer is largely due to the fact that the drag for flow past sphere is largely dominated by form drag, which does not crucially depend on boundarylayer resolution. Thus, with moderate resolution requirement, our approach is able to predict quantities of engineering interest quite accurately. This improvement in LBM is remarkable as typical LBM simulations for high Reynolds Numbers for any setup require the use of turbulence models^{6,47,48,49} but present RD3Q27 model does not require any explicit model for turbulence.
Outlook
A new formulation of LBM, based on the crystallographic viewpoint has been presented. It has been shown that LBM based on the BCC lattice spatial discretization has efficiency that is an orderofmagnitude higher than traditional LBM. The gain obtained by using the BCC lattice has been demonstrated by various representative simulations such as Kida flow and flow past a sphere. To conclude, this new formulation is capable of solving problems of practical interest without using explicit turbulence modeling. Thus, the current approach of formulating LBM on a BCC grid raises the prospect of direct simulations of turbulence without using explicit turbulence models.
Finally, we emphasize that this new route to increase accuracy is not an alternate to building higher order LBM for better accuracy. Indeed by constructing higher order LBM on BCC, accuracy can be further improved^{50}. Similarly, role of collision models (multirelaxation, entropic)^{32,51} needs to be investigated for this lattice.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Namburi, M. et al. Crystallographic Lattice Boltzmann Method. Sci. Rep. 6, 27172; doi: 10.1038/srep27172 (2016).
References
Pope, S. B. Turbulent flows (Cambridge univ. press, 2000).
Larsson, J. & Wang, Q. The prospect of using large eddy and detached eddy simulations in engineering design and the research required to get there. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A 372, 20130329 (2014).
Slotnick, J. et al. CFD vision 2030 study: A path to revolutionary computational aerosciences. NASA CR 2014218178 (March, 2014).
Thantanapally, C., Patil, D. V., Succi, S. & Ansumali, S. Universal mechanism for saturation of vorticity growth in fully developed fluid turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 728, R4 (2013).
Hussaini, M. Y. & Zang, T. A. Spectral methods in fluid dynamics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 19, 339–367 (1987).
Chen, H. et al. Extended Boltzmann kinetic equation for turbulent flows. Science 301, 633 (2003).
Singh, S., Subramanian, G. & Ansumali, S. Lattice Fokker Planck for dilute polymer dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 88, 013301 (2013).
Thampi, S. P., Golestanian, R. & Yeomans, J. M. Velocity correlations in an active nematic. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 118101 (2013).
Mendoza, M., Boghosian, B., Hermann, H. & Succi, S. Fast lattice Boltzmann solver for relativistic hydrodynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 014502 (2010).
Benzi, R., Bernaschi, M., Sbragaglia, M. & Succi, S. Rheological properties of softglassy flows from hydrokinetic simulations. Europhys. Lett. 104, 48006 (2013).
Chen, H., Orszag, S. A., Staroselsky, I. & Succi, S. Expanded analogy between Boltzmann kinetic theory of fluids and turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 519, 301–314 (2004).
Ansumali, S., Karlin, I. V., Arcidiacono, S., Abbas, A. & Prasianakis, N. Hydrodynamics beyond navierstokes: Exact solution to the lattice Boltzmann hierarchy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 124502 (2007).
Chen, H., Chen, S. & Matthaeus, W. H. Recovery of the navierstokes equations using a latticegas Boltzmann method. Phys. Rev. A 45, R5339 (1992).
Qian, Y., d’Humières, D. & Lallemand, P. Lattice BGK models for navierstokes equation. Europhys. Lett. 17, 479 (1992).
Lallemand, P. & Luo, LiShi. Theory of the lattice Boltzmann method: Dispersion, dissipation, isotropy, galilean invariance and stability. Phys. Rev. E 61, 6546 (2000).
Chen, S. & Doolen, G. D. Lattice Boltzmann method for fluid flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 30, 329–364 (1998).
Aidun, C. K. & Clausen, J. R. LatticeBoltzmann method for complex flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 439–472 (2010).
Benzi, R., Succi, S. & Vergassola, M. The lattice Boltzmann equation: theory and applications. Phys. Rep. 222, 145–197 (1992).
Higuera, F., Succi, S. & Benzi, R. Lattice gas dynamics with enhanced collisions. Europhys. Lett. 9, 345 (1989).
Succi, S. The lattice boltzmann equation: for fluid dynamics and beyond (Oxford university press, 2001).
Ladd, A. Shorttime motion of colloidal particles: Numerical simulation via a fluctuating latticeBoltzmann equation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1339 (1993).
Adhikari, R., Stratford, K., Cates, M. & Wagner, A. Fluctuating lattice Boltzmann. Europhys. Lett. 71, 473 (2005).
Chikatamarla, S., Frouzakis, C., Karlin, I., Tomboulides, A. & Boulouchos, K. Lattice Boltzmann method for direct numerical simulation of turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. 656, 298–308 (2010).
Premnath, K. N., Pattison, M. J. & Banerjee, S. Generalized lattice Boltzmann equation with forcing term for computation of wallbounded turbulent flows. Phys. Rev. E 79, 026703 (2009).
Filippova, O. & Hänel, D. Grid refinement for latticebgk models. J. Comput. Phys. 147, 219–228 (1998).
Succi, S., Filippova, O., Chen, H. & Orszag, S. Towards a renormalized lattice Boltzmann equation for fluid turbulence. J. Stat. Phys. 107, 261–278 (2002).
Succi, S. Lattice Boltzmann 2038. Europhys. Lett. 109, 50001–50007 (2015).
Bhatnagar, P. L., Gross, E. P. & Krook, M. A model for collision processes in gases. i. small amplitude processes in charged and neutral onecomponent systems. Phys. Rev. 94, 511 (1954).
Ladd, A. J. Numerical simulations of particulate suspensions via a discretized Boltzmann equation. part 1. theoretical foundation. J. Fluid Mech. 271, 285–309 (1994).
Conway, J. & Sloane, N. Sphere packings, lattices and groups (SpringerVerlag, New York, 1993).
Karlin, I., Ferrante, A. & Öttinger, H. Perfect entropy functions of the lattice Boltzmann method. Europhys. Lett. 47, 182 (1999).
Ansumali, S., Karlin, I. & Öttinger, H. Minimal entropic kinetic models for hydrodynamics. Europhys. Lett. 63, 798 (2003).
Ansumali, S. & Karlin, I. Consistent lattice Boltzmann method. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 260605 (2005).
Singh, S., Krithivasan, S., Karlin, I., Succi, S. & Ansumali, S. Energy conserving lattice Boltzmann models for incompressible flow simulations. Commun. Comput. Phys. 13, 603–613 (2013).
Thantanapally, C., Singh, S., Patil, D. V., Succi, S. & Ansumali, S. Quasiequilibrium lattice Boltzmann models with tunable prandtl number for incompressible hydrodynamics. Int. J. Modern Physics C 24, 1340004 (2013).
Shi, Y., Yap, Y. W. & Sader, J. E. Linearized lattice Boltzmann method for microand nanoscale flow and heat transfer. Phys. Rev. E 92, 013307 (2015).
Harting, J., Kunert, C. & Herrmann, H. J. Lattice Boltzmann simulations of apparent slip in hydrophobic microchannels. Europhys. Lett. 75, 328 (2006).
Qian, Y.H. & Zhou, Y. Complete Galileaninvariant lattice bgk models for the navierstokes equation. Europhys. Lett. 42, 359 (1998).
Petersen, D. P. & Middleton, D. Sampling and reconstruction of wavenumberlimited functions in ndimensional euclidean spaces. Information and control 5, 279–323 (1962).
Achenbach, E. Experiments on the flow past spheres at very high Reynolds numbers. J. Fluid Mech. 54, 565–575 (1972).
Tomboulides, A. G. & Orszag, S. A. Numerical investigation of transitional and weak turbulent flow past a sphere. J. Fluid Mech. 416, 45–73 (2000).
Johnson, T. A. & Patel, V. C. Flow past a sphere up to a Reynolds number of 300. J. Fluid Mech. 378, 19–70 (1999).
Spalart, P. R. Detachededdy simulation. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 41, 181–202 (2009).
Bakic, V. Experimental investigation of turbulent flows around a sphere. Ph.D. Thesis, TUHH Hamburg, Germany (2002).
Krithivasan, S., Wahal, S. & Ansumali, S. Diffused bounceback condition and refill algorithm for the lattice Boltzmann method. Phys. Rev. E 89, 033313 (2014).
Chikatamarla, S., Ansumali, S. & Karlin, I. Grad’s approximation for missing data in lattice Boltzmann simulations. Europhys. Lett. 74, 215 (2006).
Teixeira, C. M. Incorporating turbulence models into the latticeBoltzmann method. Int. J. Modern Phys. C 9, 1159–1175 (1998).
Girimaji, S. S. Boltzmann kinetic equation for filtered fluid turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 034501 (2007).
Premnath, K. N., Pattison, M. J. & Banerjee, S. Dynamic subgrid scale modeling of turbulent flows using latticeBoltzmann method. Physica A 388, 2640–2658 (2009).
Chikatamarla, Shyam S., Karlin & Iliya, V., Lattices for the lattice Boltzmann method. Phys. Rev. E 79, 046701 (2009).
Aidun, Cyrus K. & Clausen, Jonathan R. LatticeBoltzmann method for complex flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 439–472 (2010).
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support of Sheikh Saqr Laboratory (SSL), JNCASR. Support from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under the project “UK Consortium on Mesoscale Engineering Sciences (UKCOMES)” (Grant No. EP/L00030X/1) is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.A. conceived the new BCC grid structure and assisted in the theoritical analysis. M.N. assisted in the discussions, performed the theoritical analysis and numerical simulations. S.K. wrote the code and assisted in performing the simulations. All authors read and approved the final version.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Namburi, M., Krithivasan, S. & Ansumali, S. Crystallographic Lattice Boltzmann Method. Sci Rep 6, 27172 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27172
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27172
 Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by

Underresolved and large eddy simulations of a decaying Taylor–Green vortex with the cumulant lattice Boltzmann method
Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics (2021)

Deciphering porelevel precipitation mechanisms
Scientific Reports (2017)