1: \documentclass{ws-ijmpc}
2: \begin{document}
3:
4: \markboth{Pan, Xu, Zhang, Jiang} {Lattice Boltzmann Approach to
5: High-Speed Compressible Flows}
6:
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Publisher's Area please ignore %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \catchline{}{}{}{}{}
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10:
11: \title{Lattice Boltzmann Approach to High-Speed Compressible Flows}
12: \author{X. F. Pan, Aiguo Xu\footnote{Corresponding author}, Guangcai Zhang, Song Jiang }
13: \address{
14: National Key Laboratory of Computational Physics, Institute of
15: Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics, P.O.Box
16: 8009-26, Beijing 100088, P.R.China\\
17: E-mail: Xu\_Aiguo@iapcm.ac.cn}
18:
19: \maketitle
20:
21: \begin{history}
22: \received{23 April 2007} \revised{4 June 2007}
23: \end{history}
24:
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We present an improved lattice Boltzmann model for high-speed
28: compressible flows. The model is composed of a discrete-velocity
29: model by Kataoka and Tsutahara [Phys. Rev. E \textbf{69}, 056702
30: (2004)] and an appropriate finite-difference scheme combined with an
31: additional dissipation term. With the dissipation term parameters in
32: the model can be flexibly chosen so that the von Neumann stability
33: condition is satisfied. The influence of the various model
34: parameters on the numerical stability is analyzed and some reference
35: values of parameter are suggested. The new scheme works for both
36: subsonic and supersonic flows with a Mach number up to $30$ (or
37: higher), which is validated by well-known benchmark tests.
38: Simulations on Riemann problems with very high ratios ($1000:1$) of
39: pressure and density also show good accuracy and stability.
40: Successful recovering of regular and double Mach shock reflections
41: shows the potential application of the lattice Boltzmann model to
42: fluid systems where non-equilibrium processes are intrinsic. The new
43: scheme for stability can be easily extended to other lattice
44: Boltzmann models.
45:
46: \keywords{Lattice Boltzmann; high-speed compressible flow; von
47: Neumann Analysis; shock.}
48:
49: \end{abstract}
50: %\ccode{PACS Nos.: 47.11.-j, 51.10.+y, 05.20.Dd}
51:
52:
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56: High-speed compressible flow with shocks plays an important role in
57: various fields, such as explosion physics, aeronautics, etc.
58: Efficient simulation of such a system is interesting and
59: challenging. The traditional method is based on a set of macroscopic
60: Euler equations resolved by the Finite-element or Finite-volume
61: schemes, where the artificial viscosity is applied or the Riemann
62: solver is used to capture the shock\cite{1,KXuJCP1998,YuXJ}.
63: According to the gas kinetic theory, a set of Euler equations
64: describes a system being at equilibrium. For a system with shocks,
65: the non-equilibrium behavior is intrinsic, so a scheme based on the
66: fundamental kinetic theory is to be preferred. As a new approach to
67: fluid dynamics, the lattice Boltzmann (LB) method\cite{lbe-1} solves
68: the fully discrete Boltzmann equation by using an appropriate
69: difference scheme
70: to the temporal and spatial derivatives of the distribution function $f_{i}(%
71: \mathbf{x},t)$, where $\mathbf{x}$ and $t$ are the position and time,
72: respectively, and the index $i$ corresponds to the $i$-th discrete velocity.
73: It recovers the desired macroscopic equations in the hydrodynamic limit and
74: has the potential to fill the gap between continuum description and
75: molecular dynamics\cite{HSPRL2006}. Besides the traditional LB originating
76: from the lattice gas cellular automata\cite{Swift96,noi,Xuepl,xsb2006,Karlin}%
77: , other versions such as finite-difference(FD)\cite%
78: {SetaJSP,Guo,Watari,Kataoka_NSE,Kataoka_Euler}, finite-volume(FV)\cite{FVLBM}%
79: , and finite-element(FE)\cite{FELBM}, etc have also been developed under the
80: same framework. Among these works, developing LB models for high-speed
81: compressible flows has long been attempted by different authors\cite%
82: {Kataoka_Euler,CLB}. Among the existing models for two-dimesnional
83: compressible fluids, the one by Kataoka and
84: Tsutahara(KT)\cite{Kataoka_Euler} has a simple and rigorous
85: theoretical background. It takes flexible ratio of specific-heat and
86: is superior in computational efficiency because the total number of
87: its discrete velocity is reduced to $9$. But similar to previous LB
88: models\cite{Yong2003}, the numerical stability problem remains one
89: of the few blocks for its practical simulation to high-Mach-number
90: compressible flows. In this paper we present a new scheme based on
91: the original discrete-velocity-model (DVM) by KT and an appropriate
92: finite-difference scheme combined an additional dissipation term.
93: With the new scheme fluid systems with high-Mach-number and/or high
94: ratios of pressure and density can be successfully simulated.
95:
96: This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the original
97: discrete-velocity-model by KT is briefly reviewed and an alternative
98: FD scheme is proposed for later analysis and using. A von Neumann
99: stability analysis is performed in section 3, from which solutions
100: to improve the numerical stability can be found. Several benchmark
101: tests are used to validate the proposed scheme in section 4. Section
102: 5 concludes the present paper.
103:
104: \section{Description of the DVM and FD scheme}
105:
106: The LB equation with the Bhatanger-Gross-Krook approximation\cite{BGK} reads,
107:
108: \begin{equation}
109: \frac{\partial f_{i}}{\partial t}+v_{i\alpha }\frac{\partial f_{i}}{\partial
110: x_{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{\tau }\left[ f_{i}^{eq}-f_{i}\right] \text{,}
111: \label{SEC1-e1}
112: \end{equation}%
113: where $f_{i}^{eq}$ is the discrete version of the local equilibrium
114: distribution function; $\tau $ the relaxation time; index $\alpha =1$, $2$, $%
115: 3$ corresponding to $x$, $y$, and $z$, respectively; and $v_{i}$ the $i$-th
116: discrete velocity, $i=0$, $...$, $N-1$; $N$ is the total number of the
117: discrete velocity. Under the hydrodynamic limit the LB equation is required
118: to describe the following Euler equations,
119: \begin{eqnarray}
120: \frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}+\frac{\partial (\rho u_{\alpha })}{%
121: \partial x_{\alpha }} &=&0, \nonumber \\
122: \frac{\partial (\rho u_{\alpha })}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial (\rho
123: u_{\alpha }u_{\beta })}{\partial x_{\beta }}+\frac{\partial P}{\partial
124: x_{\alpha }} &=&0, \label{e2} \\
125: \frac{\partial \rho (bRT+u_{\alpha }^{2})}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial \rho
126: u_{\alpha }(bRT+u_{\beta }^{2})+2Pu_{\alpha }}{\partial x_{\beta }} &=&0%
127: \text{,} \nonumber
128: \end{eqnarray}%
129: where $\rho $, $u$, $T$, $P$ ($=\rho RT$) are the hydrodynamic density, flow
130: velocity, temperature and pressure, respectively, and $R$ is the specific
131: gas constant, $b$ relates to the specific-heat ratio $\gamma $ as follows, $%
132: b=2/(\gamma -1)$. The following constraints are imposed on the moments of $%
133: f_{i}^{eq}$ and $f_{i}$,
134: \begin{equation}
135: \rho =\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}f_{i}^{eq}=\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}f_{i}\text{,} \label{e4}
136: \end{equation}%
137: \begin{equation}
138: \rho u_{\alpha }=\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}f_{i}^{eq}v_{i\alpha
139: }=\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}f_{i}v_{i\alpha }\text{,} \label{e5}
140: \end{equation}%
141: \begin{equation}
142: \rho (bRT+u_{\alpha }^{2})=\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}f_{i}^{eq}(v_{i\alpha }^{2}+\eta
143: _{i}^{2})=\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}f_{i}(v_{i\alpha }^{2}+\eta _{i}^{2})\text{,}
144: \label{e7}
145: \end{equation}%
146: \begin{equation}
147: P\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\rho u_{\alpha }u_{\beta
148: }=\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}f_{i}^{eq}v_{i\alpha }v_{i\beta }\text{,} \label{e6}
149: \end{equation}%
150: \begin{equation}
151: \rho \lbrack (b+2)RT+u_{\beta }^{2})u_{\alpha
152: }=\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}f_{i}^{eq}(v_{i\alpha }^{2}+\eta _{i}^{2})v_{i\alpha }%
153: \text{,} \label{e8}
154: \end{equation}%
155: where $\eta _{i}$ is another variable introduced to make
156: specific-heat ratio flexible\footnote{In a practical system, the
157: ratio $\gamma$ provides information on the internal degrees of
158: freedom of molecules. For example, $\gamma$ has a certain well-known
159: value for an ideal, monatomic gas (like helium), and is different
160: for diatomic molecules like those that make up most of the
161: atmosphere. To formulate the DVM, the discretization and
162: contribution of the internal degrees of freedoms of the molecules
163: are represented by the constraints \eqref{e7} and \eqref{e8}. }.
164:
165: Equation \eqref{SEC1-e1} may be written in non-dimensional form by using a
166: characteristic flow length scale $L$, reference speed $e_{r}$ and density $%
167: \rho _{r}$. Two reference time scales are used, $t_{c}$ to represent the
168: time between particle collisions and $L/e_{r}$ to present a characteristic
169: flow time. The resulting non-dimensional equation is
170: \begin{equation}
171: \frac{\partial \hat{f}_{i}}{\partial \hat{t}}+\hat{v}_{i\alpha }\frac{%
172: \partial \hat{f}_{i}}{\partial \hat{x}_{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon \hat{%
173: \tau}}[\hat{f}_{i}^{eq}-\hat{f}_{i}]\text{,} \label{SEC1-e9}
174: \end{equation}%
175: where the caret symbols are used to denote non-dimensional quantities $\hat{v%
176: }_{i\alpha }=v_{i\alpha }/e_{r}$, $\hat{t}=te_{r}/L$ , $\hat{\tau}=\tau
177: /t_{c}$, and $\hat{f}_{i}=f_{i}/\rho _{r}$. The parameter $\varepsilon
178: =t_{c}e_{r}/L$ is the Knudsen number which may be interpreted as either the
179: ratio of collision time to flow time or as the ratio of mean free path to
180: the characteristic flow length. We will not use the caret notation further
181: but will assume that the equation are in non-dimensional form henceforth.
182:
183: In the two-dimensional case, the KT discrete velocity model has nine
184: components. It reads
185: \begin{equation}
186: (v_{i1},v_{i2})=\left\{
187: \begin{array}{ll}
188: & (0,0),i=0 \\
189: & c_{1}\left( \cos (\frac{\pi (i+1)}{2}),\sin (\frac{\pi (i+1)}{2})\right)
190: ,i=1,2,3,4 \\
191: & c_{2}\left( \cos \pi (\frac{i+1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}),\cos \pi (\frac{i+1}{2}+%
192: \frac{1}{4})\right) ,i=5,6,7,8%
193: \end{array}%
194: \right. \label{e14}
195: \end{equation}
196:
197: \begin{equation}
198: \eta _i=\left\{
199: \begin{array}{ll}
200: \eta _0 & i=0 \\
201: 0 & i=1,2,...,8%
202: \end{array}
203: \right. . \label{e15}
204: \end{equation}
205:
206: A schematic figure of the distribution of the discrete velocities is
207: shown in Fig.1, where $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ are constants which should
208: not depart faraway from the flow velocity $u$ and $c_{2}$ is generally chosen $%
209: 1.0\sim 3.0$ times of $c_{1}$.
210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
211: \begin{figure}
212: \includegraphics*[width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig1.eps}
213: \includegraphics*[width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig2.eps}
214: \caption{(Left above)Schematic figure of the discrete velocity
215: model.}
216:
217: \caption{(Right above) Effects of the dissipation term. Parameters used are $\protect\rho =1.0$, $%
218: T=1.0$, $u_{1}=10.0$, $u_{2}=0.0$, the remaining constants are set as $%
219: c_{1}=10$, $c_{2}=20$, $\protect\eta _{0}=10$, $\Delta t=\protect\alpha %
220: \Delta x/c_{2} $}
221: \end{figure}
222: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
223:
224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
225: The local equilibrium distribution function is computed by
226: \begin{equation}
227: f_{i}^{eq}=\rho (A_{i}+B_{i}v_{i\alpha }u_{\alpha }+D_{i}u_{\alpha
228: }v_{i\alpha }u_{\beta }v_{i\beta })\text{, }i=0,1,2,...,8\text{,}
229: \label{e16}
230: \end{equation}%
231: where
232: \begin{equation}
233: A_{i}=\left\{
234: \begin{array}{ll}
235: & \frac{b-2}{\eta _{0}}T\text{, }i=0 \\
236: & \frac{1}{4(c_{1}^{2}-c_{2}^{2})}\left[ -c_{2}^{2}+\left( (b-2)\frac{%
237: c_{2}^{2}}{\eta _{0}^{2}}+2\right) T+\frac{c_{2}^{2}}{c_{1}^{2}}u_{\alpha
238: }^{2}\right] \text{, }i=1,2,3,4 \\
239: & \frac{1}{4(c_{2}^{2}-c_{1}^{2})}\left[ -c_{1}^{2}+\left( (b-2)\frac{%
240: c_{1}^{2}}{\eta _{0}^{2}}+2\right) T+\frac{c_{1}^{2}}{c_{2}^{2}}u_{\alpha
241: }^{2}\right] \text{, }i=5,6,7,8%
242: \end{array}%
243: \right. \label{e17}
244: \end{equation}
245:
246: \begin{equation}
247: B_{i}=\left\{
248: \begin{array}{ll}
249: 0,\quad i=0 & \\
250: \frac{-c_{2}^{2}+(b+2)T+u_{\beta }^{2}}{2c_{1}^{2}(c_{1}^{2}-c_{2}^{2})}%
251: ,\quad i=1,2,3,4 & \\
252: \frac{-c_{1}^{2}+(b+2)T+u_{\beta }^{2}}{2c_{2}^{2}(c_{2}^{2}-c_{1}^{2})}%
253: ,\quad i=5,6,7,8 &
254: \end{array}%
255: \right. \text{, }D_{i}=\left\{
256: \begin{array}{ll}
257: 0,\quad i=0 & \\
258: \frac{1}{2c_{1}^{4}},\quad i=1,2,3,4 & \\
259: \frac{1}{2c_{2}^{4}},\quad i=5,6,7,8 & \\
260: &
261: \end{array}%
262: \right. \label{e18}
263: \end{equation}
264:
265: It is clear that $\eta_0$, $c_1$ and $c_2$ are independent
266: parameters in this DVM and the value of $\eta_0$ influences the
267: discrete local equilibrium distribution function $f_{i}^{eq}$ via
268: the expansion coefficient $A_i$. The combination of the above DVM
269: and the general FD scheme with first-order forward in time and
270: second-order upwinding in space composes the original FDLB model by
271: KT. The FDLB by KT has been validated via the Riemann problem in
272: subsonic flows\cite{Kataoka_Euler}. In a LB simulation the
273: discretization in time and space introduces unphysical waves, and
274: the collision term introduces a physical dissipation when the system
275: deviates from the local equilibrium. If the physical dissipation is
276: strong enough so that the unphysical oscillations are not to be
277: amplified in the simulation procedure, we will have no instability
278: problem. The original LB model by KT is not stable when the Mach
279: number $M$ exceeds $1$\cite{Kataoka_Euler},
280: which shows that an additional dissipation term is needed in such cases.
281: To make practical the LB
282: simulation to the supersonic flows, we propose an alternative FD
283: scheme in the following part of this section. The proposed FD scheme
284: will be combined with an additional dissipation term to overcome the
285: numerical instability problem in the next section.
286:
287: We use the usual first-order forward scheme in time. Since all the
288: quantities are now non-dimensional, to simplify the following analysis, the
289: time step $\Delta t$ is set to be numerically equal to the Knudsen number $%
290: \varepsilon $. Thus, from Eq.\eqref{SEC1-e9} we have
291: \begin{equation}
292: f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t+\Delta t)-f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)+v_{i\alpha }\frac{\partial
293: f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)}{\partial x_{\alpha }}\Delta t=\frac{1}{\tau }\left[
294: f_{i}^{eq}(\mathbf{x},t)-f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)\right] \text{.}
295: \label{SEC-VON-1}
296: \end{equation}%
297: In Eq.\eqref{SEC-VON-1} the spatial derivative $\partial f_{i}/\partial x$
298: can be calculated by
299: \begin{equation}
300: \text{If }v_{ix}\geq 0,\quad \frac{\partial {f_{i}}}{\partial x}=\frac{\beta
301: f_{i}(x+\Delta x,t)+(1-2\beta )f_{i}(x,t)-(1-\beta )f_{i}(x-\Delta x,t)}{%
302: \Delta x}\text{;} \label{SEC-VON-2a}
303: \end{equation}%
304: \begin{equation}
305: \text{If }v_{ix}<0,\quad \frac{\partial {f_{i}}}{\partial x}=\frac{(1-\beta
306: )f_{i}(x+\Delta x,t)-(1-2\beta )f_{i}(x,t)-\beta f_{i}(x-\Delta x,t)}{\Delta
307: x}\text{.} \label{SEC-VON-2b}
308: \end{equation}%
309: In Eqs.\eqref{SEC-VON-2a} and \eqref{SEC-VON-2b}, $0\leq \beta \leq 0.5$. If
310: $\beta $ takes zero, then they are not other than the first order upwind
311: scheme in space; if $\beta $ takes $0.5$, they recover to the general
312: central difference scheme. $\partial f_{i}/\partial y$ can be calculated in
313: a similar way. Actually, Eqs.\eqref{SEC-VON-2a} and \eqref{SEC-VON-2b} can
314: be rewritten as
315: \begin{eqnarray}
316: \text{If }v_{ix} &\geq &0,\quad \frac{\partial {f_{i}}}{\partial x}=\frac{%
317: f_{i}(x,t)-f_{i}(x-\Delta x,t)}{\Delta x} \label{SEC-VON-2c} \\
318: &&+\frac{\beta \Delta x[f_{i}(x+\Delta x,t)+f_{i}(x-\Delta x,t)-2f_{i}(x,t)]%
319: }{{\Delta x}^{2}}\text{;} \nonumber
320: \end{eqnarray}%
321: \begin{eqnarray}
322: \text{If }v_{ix} &<&0,\quad \frac{\partial {f_{i}}}{\partial x}=\frac{%
323: f_{i}(x+\Delta x,t)-f_{i}(x,t)}{\Delta x} \label{SEC-VON-2d} \\
324: &&-\frac{\beta \Delta x[f_{i}(x+\Delta x,t)+f_{i}(x-\Delta x,t)-2f_{i}(x,t)]%
325: }{{\Delta x}^{2}}\text{.} \nonumber
326: \end{eqnarray}%
327: The second terms in the right-hand-side of Eqs.\eqref{SEC-VON-2c} and %
328: \eqref{SEC-VON-2d} can be regarded as some kind of artificial
329: viscosities which are used to reduce some unphysical phenomena such
330: as wall-heating\cite{Ball1996}, but they are not enough to be
331: effectively improve the stability of LB simulation, which means
332: additional dissipation term is needed for a practical LB simulation.
333: In the following sections the parameter $\beta $ is chosen to be
334: $0.25$ if not particularly stated.
335:
336: \section{von Neumann Analysis}
337:
338: \label{SECTION-STABILITY}
339:
340: The stability problem of LB has been addressed and attempted for
341: some years
342: \cite{lbe-1,Yong2003,Xiong2002,Tosi2006,Ansumali2002,Li2004,Sofonea2004,Brownlee2007}
343: . Among them, the the entropic LB method\cite%
344: {Tosi2006,Ansumali2002} tries to make the scheme to follow the $%
345: H$-theorem; The FIX-UP method\cite{Tosi2006,Li2004} is based on the
346: standard BGK scheme, uses a third order equilibrium distribution
347: function and a self-adapting updating parameter to avoid
348: negativeness of the mass distribution function. Flux limiter
349: techniques are used to enhance the stability of FDLB by Sofonea, et
350: al\cite{Sofonea2004}. Adding minimal dissipation locally to improve
351: stability is also suggested by Brownlee, et al\cite{Brownlee2007},
352: but there such an approach is not explicitly discussed. All the
353: above mentioned attempts are for low Mach number flows. In this
354: paper we focus mainly on high speed flows.
355:
356: Following Seta, et al\cite{SetaJSP}, in this paper we resort to the
357: von Neumann stability analysis to compose a stable LB scheme where
358: the additional dissipation is effective and minimal. The following
359: analysis is based on the FD scheme shown in Eqs.\eqref{SEC-VON-2c}
360: and \eqref{SEC-VON-2d}. In the von Neumann analysis the solution of
361: finite-difference equation is written as the familiar Fourier
362: series, and the numerical stability is evaluated by the magnitude of
363: eigenvalues of an
364: amplification matrix. The small perturbation $\Delta f_{i}$ is defined as $%
365: f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)=\Delta f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)+\bar{f_{i}^{0}}$, where $\bar{%
366: f_{i}^{0}}$ is the global equilibrium distribution function and is a
367: constant which does not vary in space or time and depends only on the mean
368: density, velocity and temperature. From Eq. \eqref{SEC-VON-1} we can obtain
369: \begin{equation}
370: \Delta f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t+\Delta t)-\Delta f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)+v_{i\alpha }%
371: \frac{\partial \Delta f_{i}}{\partial x_{\alpha }}\Delta t=\frac{\Delta f_{j}%
372: }{\tau }\left[ \frac{\partial f_{i}^{eq}}{\partial f_{j}}-1\right] \text{.}
373: \label{SEC-VON-4}
374: \end{equation}%
375: The perturbation part $\Delta f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)$ may be written as series
376: of complex exponents, $\Delta f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)=F_{i}^{t}\mathrm{exp}(i%
377: \mathbf{k\cdot x})$, where $F^{t}$ is an amplitude at grid point
378: $\mathbf{x}$ and time $t$, $i$ is an imaginary unit, and $k_{\alpha
379: }$ is the wave number of sine wave in the domain with the highest
380: resolution $1/\Delta x_{\alpha}$. From Eqs. \eqref{SEC-VON-4} we
381: obtain $F_{i}^{t+\Delta t}=G_{i,j}F_{j}^{t}$ ,
382: where $G_{ij}$ is a matrix being used to assess amplification rate of $%
383: F_{i}^{t}$ per time step $\Delta t$. If the maximum of the eigenvalues of
384: the amplification matrix satisfies the condition, $\mathrm{max}%
385: |\omega |\leq 1$, for all wave numbers, the FD scheme is surely
386: stable, where $\omega $ is the eigenvalue of the amplification
387: matrix. This is the von Neumann condition for stability.
388:
389: The amplification matrix $\mathbf{G}$ can be written as following,
390: \begin{equation}
391: G_{ij}=\left( 1-\frac{v_{i\alpha }\Delta t}{\Delta x_{\alpha }}\phi -\frac{1%
392: }{\tau }\right) \delta _{ij}+\frac{1}{\tau }\frac{\partial f_{i}^{eq}}{%
393: \partial f_{j}} \label{SEC-VON-8}
394: \end{equation}%
395: where
396: \begin{equation}
397: \phi =\left\{
398: \begin{array}{ll}
399: \beta \mathrm{exp}(i k_{\alpha }\Delta x_{\alpha })+(1-2\beta
400: )-(1-\beta )\mathrm{exp}(-i k_{\alpha }\Delta x_{\alpha }), & \text{%
401: if }v_{i\alpha }\geq 0\text{;} \\
402: (1-\beta )\mathrm{exp}(i k_{\alpha }\Delta x_{\alpha })-(1-2\beta
403: )-\beta \mathrm{exp}(-i k_{\alpha }\Delta x_{\alpha }), & \text{if }%
404: v_{i\alpha }<0\text{.}%
405: \end{array}%
406: \right. \label{SEC-VON-9}
407: \end{equation}
408:
409: Several researchers have analyzed the stability of the
410: incompressible LB models\cite{SetaJSP,James1996,Niu2004}, it is
411: found that there is not a
412: single wave-number being always the most unstable. For the 2D DVM by KT $%
413: \mathbf{G}$ is a matrix with $9\times 9$ elements. Every element is
414: related to the macroscopical variables (density, temperature,
415: velocities), discrete velocities and other constants, so it is
416: difficult to analyze with explicit expressions. We resort to the
417: software, Mathematica-5.
418:
419: In order to simulate high-speed flows, we introduce the following
420: dissipation term to the LB equation,
421: \begin{equation}
422: f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t+\Delta t)-f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)+v_{i\alpha }\frac{\partial
423: f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)}{\partial x_{\alpha }}\Delta t-\lambda _{i}\sum_{\alpha
424: =1}^{2}\frac{\partial ^{2}f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)}{\partial x_{\alpha }^{2}}%
425: \Delta t=\frac{1}{\tau }[f_{i}^{eq}(\mathbf{x},t)-f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)]
426: \label{SEC-VON-11}
427: \end{equation}%
428: where $\lambda _{i}$ is a small number not varying in space or time. The
429: second-order derivative $\frac{\partial ^{2}f_{i}(\mathbf{x},t)}{\partial
430: x_{\alpha }^{2}}$ can be calculated by the central difference scheme. Then $%
431: G_{i,j}$ can be written as
432: \begin{align}
433: G_{i,j} =\frac{\partial f_{i}^{eq}}{\partial f_{j}}-\frac{v_{i\alpha }\Delta t}{%
434: \Delta x_{\alpha }}\phi \delta _{ij}-\lambda _{i}\sum_{\alpha =1}^{2}\frac{%
435: 2-2\mathrm{cos}(k_{\alpha }\Delta x_{\alpha })}{(\Delta x_{\alpha })^{2}}%
436: \Delta t\delta _{ij}\text{ .} \label{SEC-VON-12}
437: \end{align}
438:
439: Obviously, in Eq.\eqref{SEC-VON-12} the last term is required to
440: improve the numerical stability. How to chose the $\lambda _{i}$ is
441: the key problem here. It will not be effective if too small and will
442: result in too additional errors if too large. To get some indication
443: we look back to the last terms in Eqs.\eqref{SEC-VON-2c} and
444: \eqref{SEC-VON-2d} which are regarded as artificial viscosities to
445: reduce the numerical wall-heating phenomena. To simplify the
446: discussion, we choose always $\Delta x=\Delta y$. Indicative
447: analysis and numerical tests show that we can choose $\lambda _{i}$
448: around the following way,
449: \begin{equation}
450: \lambda _{i}=\left\{
451: \begin{array}{ll}
452: c_{1}\Delta x, & i=0 \\
453: c_{1}\Delta x/10, & i=1,2,3,4 \\
454: 0, & i=5,6,7,8%
455: \end{array}%
456: \right. \text{.} \label{SEC-VON-13}
457: \end{equation}
458:
459: Now we show some results of von Neumann analysis by Mathematica-5 to get a
460: more complete understanding of the stability condition. We will show only
461: the results for high-Mach-number flows where the instability problem is
462: generally much more pronounced and previous LB models fail to work. The
463: results will be shown by figures with curves for the maximum eigenvalue $%
464: |\omega |_{max}$ of $\mathbf{G}$ versus $k\Delta x$. The wave number
465: $k$ is discretized from $0$ to $\pi $ with $30$ steps. Figure 2
466: shows a comparison between the two cases, with and without the
467: additional dissipation term, where the macroscopic variables are
468: chosen as $\rho=1.0,T=1.0,u_{1}=10.0,u_{2}=0.0$, and the constants in Eqs.\eqref{e14}
469: and %
470: \eqref{e15} are set as $c_{1}=10$, $c_{2}=20$, $\eta _{0}=10$. Coefficient $%
471: \alpha $ in the inset of the figure is a new constant introduced to
472: control the time step in the following way, $\Delta t=\alpha \Delta
473: x/c_{2}$. For the two sets of results shown in the figure, it is
474: clear that the
475: dissipation term can significantly decrease the the maximum eigenvalue $%
476: |\omega |_{max}$ from being larger than to be smaller than $1$ for
477: appropriately given time step.
478:
479: It is interesting to investigate the effects of various parameters
480: (physical quantities and model constants in Eqs.\eqref{e14} and
481: \eqref{e15}) on the numerical stability. Fig.3 shows the a
482: comparison of two cases: the first one is $\beta =0.25$ with
483: switching on the additional dissipation and the second is $\beta =0$
484: with switching off of the additional dissipation. The latter
485: corresponds to the conventional first-order upwind scheme. For the
486: given parameters, when the time step is small, both treatments give
487: stable simulations; but when the time step becomes large, the first
488: treatment makes the simulation stable while the second one does
489: not.
490:
491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
492: \begin{figure}[tbp]
493: \includegraphics*[width=0.47\textwidth]{Fig3.eps}
494: \includegraphics*[width=0.47\textwidth]{Fig4.eps}
495: \caption{(Left above) Stability analysis for mixed schemes. The
496: macroscopic variables are set as $\protect\rho
497: =1.0,T=1.0,u_{1}=10.0,u_{2}=0.0$, the constants are set as
498: $c_{1}=10,c_{2}=20,\protect\eta _{0}=10,\Delta t=\protect\alpha
499: \Delta x/c_{2}$.}
500:
501: \caption{(Right above) The influence of $c_{2}$. The macroscopic variables are set as $%
502: \protect\rho =1.0,T=1.0,u_{1}=10.0,u_{2}=0.0$, the other constants
503: are set as $c_{1}=10,\protect\eta _{0}=10,\Delta t=0.45\Delta
504: x/c_{2}$.}
505: \end{figure}
506:
507: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
508: Figure 4 shows an investigation to the influence of constant $c_{2}$
509: on the stability of LB simulation, where the value of $c_{2}$ is
510: altered from $10$ to $50$, the time step $\Delta t=0.45\Delta
511: x/c_{2}$, the other constants and macroscopic variables are
512: unchanged. The LB is stable for all tested values of $c_{2}$. Our
513: experience shows that the value of $c_{2}$
514: does not influence much the numerical stability if it is not smaller than $%
515: 2c_{1}$, but the stable time step becomes smaller for larger the value of $%
516: c_{2}$.
517: Figure 5 shows an investigation to the influence of the value of $%
518: \eta _{0}$. The value of $\eta _{0}$ is altered from $5$ to $20$, $c_{2}=20$%
519: , $\Delta t=0.3\Delta x/c_{2}$, the other constants and macroscopic
520: variables are kept unchanged. We get an indication that it is not difficult
521: to find an appropriate value of $\eta _{0}$ to get a stable simulation. For
522: cases shown in the figure, only a too small value of $\eta _{0}$ may result
523: in instability (see the case of $\eta _{0}=5$) and stability is nearly the
524: same when $\eta _{0}$ exceeds some critical value (see the cases with $\eta
525: _{0}=15$ and with $\eta _{0}=20$).
526: \begin{figure}[tbp]
527: \includegraphics*[width=0.47\textwidth]{Fig5.eps}
528: \includegraphics*[width=0.47\textwidth]{Fig6.eps}
529: \caption{(Left above) The influence of $\protect\eta _{0}$. The
530: three physical quanties are set as $\protect\rho
531: =1.0,T=1.0,u_{1}=10.0,u_{2}=0.0$, and other constants are set as
532: $c_{1}=10,c_{2}=20,\protect\eta _{0}=10,\Delta t=0.3\Delta
533: x/c_{2}$.}
534:
535: \caption{(Right above) The influence of temperature $T$. The other
536: physical quantities are set as $\protect\rho
537: =1.0,u_{1}=10.0,u_{2}=0.0$, the constants are set as
538: $c_{1}=10,c_{2}=20,\protect\eta _{0}=10,\Delta t=0.45\Delta
539: x/c_{2}$.} \label{Fig6}
540: \end{figure}
541:
542: Since the density $\rho $ can be normalized to $1$, we then
543: investigate only the effects of the other two physical quantities,
544: temperature $T$ and flow velocity $\mathbf{u}$. Figure 6 shows three
545: cases with different temperatures, $T=1$, $T=5$ and $T=25$. When
546: other parameters are fixed, the numerical stability increase with
547: the increasing of the system temperature. This can also be
548: understood that higher temperature corresponds to higher sound speed
549: and lower Mach number.
550:
551: Figure 7 shows cases with difference flow velocities. The value of $%
552: u_{1}$ is altered from zero to $15$ and $u_{2}=0$. For parameters used in
553: this case, we can find that the simulation will not be stable if $u_{1}$ is
554: much larger than $c_{1}$, even though $|\omega |_{max}$ is only slightly
555: larger than $1$ at $k\Delta x\approx 0.5$. Our experience shows that the
556: value of $c_{1}$ can be set nearly equal to the maximum of the flow
557: velocity.
558: \begin{figure}
559: \includegraphics*[width=0.47\textwidth]{Fig7.eps}
560: \includegraphics*[width=0.47\textwidth]{Fig8.eps}
561: \caption{(Left above) The influence of flow velocity $u_{1}$. The
562: other physical quantities are set as $\protect\rho
563: =1.0,T=1.0,u_{2}=0.0$, the constants are set as
564: $c_{1}=10,c_{2}=20,\protect\eta _{0}=10,\Delta t=0.3\Delta x/c_{2}$.
565: }
566:
567: \caption{(Right above)The $x$ dependence of $\protect\rho$, $p$, $u$
568: and $T$. The symbols are simulation results by the new LB and lines
569: are analytic solutions. The initial condition is described by Eq.
570: \eqref{Eq-Riemann-1}. Here $\Delta x=0.01$, $\Delta t=0.00008$, $c_1=25$,$%
571: c_2=50$,$\protect\eta_0=30$, terminal time $t=0.36$. }
572: \end{figure}
573:
574: In summary, constants $c_1$, $c_2$ and $\protect\eta_0$ influence
575: heavily the stability. In practical simulations, $c_{1}$ can be set
576: approximately equal to the maximum of flow velocity; $c_{2}$ can be
577: set to be about $2\sim 3$ times of the value of $c_{1}$; $\eta _{0}$
578: can be set an appropriate value in between $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$.
579: Equation \eqref{SEC-VON-13} is indicative in choosing parameters for
580: stable LB simulations of high-speed flow.
581:
582: \section{Numerical validations}
583:
584: Two kinds of benchmarks are used to validate the proposed scheme. The first
585: one is the Riemann problem. The second is the problem of shock reflection.
586:
587: \subsection{Riemann problem}
588:
589: Here the two-dimensional model is used to solve the one-dimensional Riemann
590: problem. The initial macroscopic variables at the two sides are $\rho _{L}$,
591: $p_{L}$ and $u_{L}$, and $\rho _{R}$, $p_{R}$ and $u_{R}$, respectively. We
592: firstly simulate a Riemann problem with an initial condition described by
593: \begin{equation}
594: \begin{array}{ll}
595: \rho _{L}=1.4, & \rho _{R}=1.4, \\
596: p_{L}=1.0, & p_{R}=1.0, \\
597: u_{L}=30.0, & u_{R}=0.0,%
598: \end{array}
599: \label{Eq-Riemann-1}
600: \end{equation}%
601: where the subscripts``L" and ``R" denote the left and right sides of
602: the discontinuity. The initial Mach number of left flow is equal to
603: $30.0$. The numerical results for $\gamma =1.4$ are shown in Fig.8,
604: where the symbols are simulation results and solid lines are
605: analytical solutions. The
606: parameters used in the simulation are $c_{1}=25$, $c_{2}=50$, $\eta _{0}=30$%
607: , $t=0.36$. The size of grid is $\Delta x=\Delta y=0.01$. Time step
608: $\Delta t=0.00008$. The two sets of results have satisfying
609: agreement. In this case no evident \textquotedblleft
610: wall-heating\textquotedblright\ phenomenon is observed. As a
611: comparison, we show a result with the general first order upwind
612: scheme for the pressure in Fig.9(a). A abrupt decrease in pressure
613: around $x=12$ corresponds to the well known wall-heating
614: phenomenon. In order to observe the effects of various additional
615: viscosity, we vary the
616: value of $\lambda_0$ from $c_1 \Delta x$ to $5c_1 \Delta x$ under the fixed $%
617: \lambda_i(i=1,...,8)$. Figure 9 (b) shows the simulation results and
618: the exact one. We can find that the numerical width of shock becomes
619: wider and wall-heating problem becomes more pronounced as
620: $\lambda_0$ increases. Results in Fig. 9 confirm that
621: \eqref{SEC-VON-13} is indicative in choosing the additional
622: viscosity.
623:
624:
625: \begin{figure}[tbp]
626: \centering
627: \includegraphics*[width=0.95\textwidth]{Fig9.eps}
628: \caption{Comparison of various finite-difference schemes (a) and
629: artificial viscosities (b). The initial
630: condition is same as Fig.8. Here $\Delta x=0.01$, $%
631: \Delta t=0.00008$, $c_1=25$,$c_2=50$,$\protect\eta_0=30$, $%
632: t=0.36$. (a) Profile of pressure. The values of
633: $\protect\lambda_i(i=0,...,8)$ are the same as those in Fig.8, while
634: $\beta=0$. The symbols correspond to simulation result the line is
635: for analytic solution. (b) Profile of temperature. The dashed, dash
636: dotted and dotted lines correspond to $\protect\lambda_0= c_1 \Delta
637: x$, $2c_1 \Delta x$, and $5c_1 \Delta x$, respectively. The values
638: of $\protect\lambda_i(i=1,...,8)$ and $\beta$ are the same as in
639: Fig.8. }
640: \end{figure}
641:
642:
643:
644: The second example is the propagation of a shock with high ratios of density
645: and pressure. The initial macroscopic variables are give by
646: \begin{equation}
647: \begin{array}{ll}
648: \rho _{L}=1000.0, & \rho _{R}=1.0, \\
649: p_{L}=1000.0, & p_{R}=1.0, \\
650: u_{L}=0.0, & u_{R}=0.0,%
651: \end{array}
652: \label{Eq-Riemann-2}
653: \end{equation}%
654: The size of grid is $\Delta x=\Delta y=2.5\times 10^{-3}$. The
655: numerical results are shown for $\gamma =1.4$ in Fig.10, where the
656: symbols are simulation results and solid lines correspond to exact
657: solutions. We find also a good agreement between the two sets of
658: results.
659:
660: \begin{figure}
661: \centering
662: \includegraphics*[width=0.7\textwidth]{Fig10.eps}
663: \caption{The $x$ dependence of $\protect\rho$, $p$, $u$ and $T$. The symbols
664: are simulation results by the new LB and lines are analytic solutions. The
665: initial condition is described by Eq. \eqref{Eq-Riemann-2}. The used
666: parameters are $\Delta x=0.0025$, $\Delta t=0.0002$, $c_1=3$,$c_2=9$,$%
667: \protect\eta_0=5$, terminal time $t=1.5$. }
668: \end{figure}
669:
670: \subsection{Shock reflection}
671:
672: We will present two gas dynamics simulations. Both are done on
673: rectangular grid. The first is to recover a steady regular shock
674: reflection. The second test problem is the double Mach reflection of
675: a shock off an oblique surface. This example is used in Ref.
676: \cite{Woodward1984} as a benchmark test for comparing the
677: performance of various difference methods on problem involving
678: strong shocks.
679:
680: In the first test problem, we have performed a $30^{\circ }$ shock
681: reflection for $\gamma =1.4$. The computational domain is a rectangle with
682: length 9 and height 3 (See Fig.11(a)). This domain is divided into a $%
683: 900\times 300$ rectangular grid with $\Delta x=\Delta y=0.01$. The
684: boundary conditions are composed of a reflecting surface along the
685: bottom boundary, supersonic outflow along the right boundary, and
686: Dirichlet conditions on the other two sides, given by
687: \begin{equation}
688: \begin{array}{l}
689: (\rho ,u_{1},u_{2},p)|_{0,y,t}=(1.0,10.0,0.0,1/1.4) \\
690: (\rho ,u_{1},u_{2},p)|_{x,1,t}=(5.0,8.0,-3.4641,20.7143)%
691: \end{array}
692: \label{Eq-Riemann-3}
693: \end{equation}%
694: Initially, we set the solution in the entire domain to be that at
695: the left boundary, the corresponding Mach number is $10.0$. In
696: Fig.11(b) we show a contour plot of the density. The clear shock
697: reflection on the wall agrees well with the exact solution.
698:
699: \begin{figure}[tbp]
700: \caption{(See Fig11.jpg )(Color online) Regular shock reflection.
701: $(a)$, Sketch map of the
702: steady state regular reflection problem. $(b)$, The density contour at time $%
703: t=2.5$ with $\Delta x = \Delta y = 0.01$, $\Delta t = 1.5\times10^{-4}$, $%
704: c_1=10$,$c_2=20$,$\protect\eta_0=15$; Left and up boundary
705: conditions are given by Eq.\eqref{Eq-Riemann-3}. From black to
706: yellow, the value increases.}
707:
708: \caption{(See Fig12.jpg) (Color online) Double Mach reflection.
709: $(a)$ initial configuration; $(b)$ the density contour at time
710: $t=1.5$ with $\Delta x = \Delta y = 0.01$, $\Delta t = 2.0\times
711: 10^{-4}$, $c_1=8$,$c_2=16$,$\protect\eta_0=10$. The reflecting wall
712: begins at $20$ mesh length from the lower left corner. From black to
713: yellow, the value increases.}
714: \end{figure}
715:
716: The second test problem is an unsteady shock reflection. A planar
717: shock is incident on an oblique surface with the surface at a
718: $30^{\circ }$ angle to the direction of propagation of the shock
719: (Fig.12(a)). The fluid
720: in front of the shock has zero velocity, and the shock Mach number is $10.0$%
721: . In Fig.12(b) we show the result of density contour, where the
722: double Mach reflection phenomenon is successfully recovered.
723:
724:
725: \section{Conclusions and discussions}
726:
727: The lattice Boltzmann simulation to high-speed compressible flows is
728: revisited by proposing an improved LB model. The new LB model is
729: composed of the original discrete-velocity-model by Kataoka and
730: Tsutahara and an appropriate finite-difference scheme to the
731: convection term. An additional dissipation term is introduced to
732: improve the numerical stability. The adding of the dissipation term
733: should survive the dilemma of stability versus accuracy. In other
734: words, the dissipation should be minimal but make the evolution
735: satisfy the von Neumann stability condition. The effects of
736: polynomial equilibria\cite{Yong2003} are taken into account (via the
737: first term of Eq.\eqref{SEC-VON-12}) in such an approach. Due to the
738: complexity the analysis resorts to the software, Mathematica-5, and
739: only some typical results are shown by figures.
740:
741: Benchmark tests are used to validate the proposed scheme and
742: reference values of model parameters are suggested. Typical Riemann
743: problems with high-Mach-number ($30$ or higher) and high ratios
744: ($1000:1$) of pressure and density show good accuracy and stability
745: of the new scheme, even though they are generally difficult to
746: resolve by traditional computational fluid dynamics. Regular and
747: Mach shock reflection problems are successfully recovered, which
748: shows also the potential application of lattice Boltzmann model to
749: fluid systems where non-equilibrium processes are intrinsic and
750: pronounced. The new LB model may be used to investigate some
751: long-standing problem, such as the transition between regular and
752: shock reflections. At the moment, we are still not able to present a
753: complete description on the most appropriate additional dissipation
754: term, but the idea presented in the paper can be easily used to get
755: some practically useful solutions for stability enhancement. We plan
756: to better clarify the physical dissipation and artificial ones in
757: the future.
758:
759: \section*{acknowledgments}
760:
761: We warmly thank Profs. Jianshi Zhu, Xingping Liu, Xijun Yu, Zhijun
762: Shen, and Yingjun Li for helpful discussions. Suggestions from the
763: anonymous referee are gratefully acknowledged. This work is partly
764: supported by the National Basic Research Program [Grant No.
765: 2005CB321700], National Natural Science Foundation [Grant No.
766: 10474137] of China, and Science Foundation of Laboratory of
767: Computational Physics, Institute of Applied Physics and
768: Computational Mathematics, Beijing, China.
769:
770: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
771:
772: \bibitem{1}H. S. Shui, \textit{Discrete Methods for One-dimensional
773: Hydrodynamics} (in Chinese), National Defence Industry Press,
774: Beijing (1998).
775:
776: \bibitem{KXuJCP1998} K. Xu, \textit{Gas-kinetic Schemes for Unsteady
777: Compressible Flow Simulations}, von Karman Institute for Fluid
778: Dynamics Lecture Series 1998-03; K. Xu and J. Hu, J. Comput. Phys.
779: \textbf{142}, 412 (1998).
780:
781: \bibitem{YuXJ} Xijun Yu and Qingfang, Numer. Methods for Part. Diff.
782: Equat. \textbf{22}, 1455 (2006); Qingfang Dai and Xijun Yu, SIAM J.
783: Sci. Comput. \textbf{28}, 805 (2006).
784:
785: \bibitem{lbe-1} R. Benzi, S. Succi, and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rep. \textbf{222%
786: }, 145 (1992); D. A. Wolf-Gladrow, \textit{Lattice gas cellular automata and
787: lattice Boltzmann models}, Springer-Verlag, New York (2000); S. Succi,
788: \textit{The lattice Boltzmann equation for Fluid Dynamics and Beyond},
789: Oxford University Press, New York (2001); H. Chen, S. Kandasamy, S. Orszag,
790: R. Shock, S. Succi, and V. Yakhot, Science 301, 633 (2003).
791:
792: \bibitem{HSPRL2006} J. Horbach and S. Succi, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{96},
793: 224503 (2006).
794:
795: \bibitem{Swift96} E. Orlandini, M. R. Swift, and J. M. Yeomans, Europhys.
796: Lett. \textbf{32}, 463 (1995); M. R. Swift, E. Orlandini, W. R. Osborn, and
797: J. M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{54}, 5041 (1996); G. Gonnella, E.
798: Orlandini, and J. M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{78}, 1695 (1997);
799: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{58}, 480 (1998).
800:
801: \bibitem{noi} Aiguo Xu, G. Gonnella, and A. Lamura, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{\ 74%
802: } 011505(2006); Phys. Rev. E \textbf{67}, 056105 (2003); Physica A \textbf{%
803: 331}, 10 (2004); Physica A \textbf{344,} 750 (2004); Physica A \textbf{362},
804: 42 (2006); Aiguo Xu, Commun. Theor. Phys. \textbf{39}, 729 (2003).
805:
806: \bibitem{Xuepl} Aiguo Xu, G. Gonnella, A. Lamura, G. Amati, and F.
807: Massaioli, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{71}, 651 (2005).
808:
809: \bibitem{xsb2006} Aiguo Xu, S. Succi, B. M. Boghosian, Math. Comput. Simulat. \textbf{72}, 249 (2006).
810:
811: \bibitem{Karlin} S. Ansumali, I. V. Karlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{95},
812: 260605 (2005); S. S. Chikatamarla, S. Ansumali, and I. V. Karlin, Phys. Rev.
813: Lett. \textbf{97}, 010201 (2006).
814:
815: \bibitem{SetaJSP} T. Seta and R. Takahashi, J. Stat. Phys. \textbf{107}, 557
816: (2002).
817:
818: \bibitem{Guo} Z. Guo and T. S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{67}, 066709 (2003).
819:
820: \bibitem{Watari} M. Watari and M. Tsutahara, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{67},
821: 036306 (2003); Phys. Rev. E \textbf{70}, 016703 (2004).
822:
823: \bibitem{Kataoka_NSE} T. Kataoka and M. Tsutahara, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{69},
824: 035701(R) (2004).
825:
826: \bibitem{Kataoka_Euler} T. Kataoka and M. Tsutahara, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{69}%
827: , 056702 (2004).
828:
829: \bibitem{FVLBM} H. Chen, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{58}, 3955(1998); H. Xi, G.
830: Peng, and S. H. Chou, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{60}, 3380 (1999); S. Ubertini, G.
831: Bella, and S. Succi, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{68}, 016701 (2003).
832:
833: \bibitem{FELBM} Y. Li, Eugene J. LeBoeuf, and P. K. Basu, Phys. Rev. E
834: \textbf{69}, 065701(R) (2004); \textit{ibid.} \textbf{72}, 046711 (2005).
835:
836: \bibitem{CLB} F. J. Alexander, H. Chen, S. Chen, and G.D.Doolen, Phys. Rev.
837: A \textbf{46}, 1967 (1992); Y.H.Qian and S. A. Orszag, Europhys. Lett.
838: \textbf{21}, 255 (1993); G. Yan, Y. Chen and S. Hu, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{59}%
839: , 454 (1999); Y. Chen, H. Ohashi and M. Akiyama, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{50},
840: 2776 (1994); C. Sun, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{58}, 7283 (1998); \textit{ibid.}
841: \textbf{61}, 2645 (2000); Aiguo Xu, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{69}, 214(2005);
842: Aiguo Xu, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{71}, 066706 (2005).
843:
844:
845: \bibitem{Yong2003} W. A. Yong and L. S. Luo, Phys. Rev. E. \textbf{67},
846: 1063(2003).
847:
848: \bibitem{BGK} P. Bhatnagar, E. P. Gross, and M. K. Krook, Phys. Rev. \textbf{%
849: 94}, 511 (1954).
850:
851: \bibitem{Xiong2002} A. Xiong, Acta Mech. Sinica (English Series)
852: \textbf{18}, 603 (2002).
853:
854:
855: \bibitem{Ball1996} G. J. Ball, Shock Waves, \textbf{5}, 311(1996).
856:
857: \bibitem{Tosi2006} F. Tosi, S. Ubertini, S. Succi, H. Chen, I.V. Karlin,
858: Math. Comput. Simulat. \textbf{72}, 227(2006)
859:
860: \bibitem{Ansumali2002} S. Ansumali, I. V. Karlin, J. Stat. Phys. \textbf{107}%
861: , 291(2002); S. Ansumali, I. V. Karlin, H. C. Ottinger, Europhys.
862: Lett. \textbf{63}, 798(2003)
863:
864: \bibitem{Li2004} Y. Li, R. Shock, R. Zhang, H. Chen, J. Fluid Mech. \textbf{%
865: 519}, 273(2004)
866:
867: \bibitem{Sofonea2004} V. Sofonea, A. Lamura, G. Gonnella, A.
868: Cristea, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{70} 046702 (2004).
869:
870: \bibitem{Brownlee2007} R. A. Brownlee, A. N. Gorban and J. Levesley, Phys.
871: Rev. E. \textbf{75}, 036711 (2007)
872:
873: \bibitem{James1996} J. D. Sterling and S. Chen, J. Comput. Phys. \textbf{123}%
874: , 196 ({199).}
875:
876: \bibitem{Niu2004} X. D. Niu, C. Shu, Y. T. Chew, and T. G. Wang, J. Stat.
877: Phys. \textbf{117}, 665 (2004).
878:
879: \bibitem{Woodward1984} P. R. Woodward and P. Colella, J. Comput. Phys.
880: \textbf{54}, 115(1984).
881:
882: \end{thebibliography}
883:
884: \end{document}
885: