A runtime based comparison of highly tuned lattice Boltzmann and finite difference solvers

IF 3.5 3区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, HARDWARE & ARCHITECTURE
K. Wichmann, M. Kronbichler, R. Löhner, W. Wall
{"title":"A runtime based comparison of highly tuned lattice Boltzmann and finite difference solvers","authors":"K. Wichmann, M. Kronbichler, R. Löhner, W. Wall","doi":"10.1177/10943420211006169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this work is a fair and unbiased comparison of a lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) against a finite difference method (FDM) for the simulation of fluid flows. Rather than reporting metrics such as floating point operation rates or memory throughput, our work considers the engineering quest of reaching a desired solution quality with the least computational effort. The specific lattice Boltzmann and finite difference methods selected here are of a very basic nature to emphasize the influence of the fundamentally different approaches. To minimize the skew in the measurements, complex boundary condition schemes and further advanced techniques are avoided and instead both methods are fully explicit, weakly compressible approaches. Due to the highly optimized nature of both codes, different sets of restrictions are imposed by either method. Using the common set of features, two relatively simple test cases in terms of a duct flow and the flow in a lid driven cavity are considered and are tuned to perform optimally with both approaches. As a third test case, a transient flow around a square cylinder is used to demonstrate the applicability to engineering oriented settings and in a temporal domain. The performance of the two methods is found to be very similar with no full advantage for any of the approaches. Overall a tendency toward better performance of the LBM at larger target errors and for indirect benchmark quantities, such as lift and drag, is observed, while the FDM excels at smaller target errors and direct comparisons of velocity and pressure profiles to analytical solutions. Other factors such as the difficulty of setting consistent boundary conditions in the LBM or the effect of stabilization in the FDM are likely to be the most important criteria when searching for a very fast flow solver for practical applications.","PeriodicalId":54957,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications","volume":"35 1","pages":"370 - 390"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10943420211006169","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10943420211006169","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, HARDWARE & ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The aim of this work is a fair and unbiased comparison of a lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) against a finite difference method (FDM) for the simulation of fluid flows. Rather than reporting metrics such as floating point operation rates or memory throughput, our work considers the engineering quest of reaching a desired solution quality with the least computational effort. The specific lattice Boltzmann and finite difference methods selected here are of a very basic nature to emphasize the influence of the fundamentally different approaches. To minimize the skew in the measurements, complex boundary condition schemes and further advanced techniques are avoided and instead both methods are fully explicit, weakly compressible approaches. Due to the highly optimized nature of both codes, different sets of restrictions are imposed by either method. Using the common set of features, two relatively simple test cases in terms of a duct flow and the flow in a lid driven cavity are considered and are tuned to perform optimally with both approaches. As a third test case, a transient flow around a square cylinder is used to demonstrate the applicability to engineering oriented settings and in a temporal domain. The performance of the two methods is found to be very similar with no full advantage for any of the approaches. Overall a tendency toward better performance of the LBM at larger target errors and for indirect benchmark quantities, such as lift and drag, is observed, while the FDM excels at smaller target errors and direct comparisons of velocity and pressure profiles to analytical solutions. Other factors such as the difficulty of setting consistent boundary conditions in the LBM or the effect of stabilization in the FDM are likely to be the most important criteria when searching for a very fast flow solver for practical applications.
基于运行时的高调谐晶格Boltzmann和有限差分求解器的比较
这项工作的目的是公平和无偏比较晶格玻尔兹曼方法(LBM)和有限差分方法(FDM)的流体流动模拟。我们的工作不是报告诸如浮点运算率或内存吞吐量之类的指标,而是考虑以最少的计算量达到所需的解决方案质量的工程追求。这里选择的特定晶格玻尔兹曼方法和有限差分方法具有非常基本的性质,以强调根本不同的方法的影响。为了最小化测量中的偏差,避免了复杂的边界条件格式和进一步的高级技术,而是两种方法都是完全显式的,弱可压缩的方法。由于两种代码的高度优化性质,两种方法都施加了不同的限制集。使用共同的特征集,考虑了两个相对简单的测试用例,即管道流动和盖子驱动腔中的流动,并对这两种方法进行了调整,以达到最佳效果。作为第三个测试用例,围绕方形圆柱体的瞬态流用于演示面向工程的设置和时域的适用性。发现这两种方法的性能非常相似,没有任何一种方法的充分优势。总的来说,在较大的目标误差和间接基准量(如升力和阻力)下,LBM的性能有更好的趋势,而FDM在较小的目标误差和直接比较速度和压力剖面与分析解的情况下表现出色。其他因素,如在LBM中设置一致边界条件的难度或在FDM中稳定的效果,可能是在寻找用于实际应用的非常快速的流动求解器时最重要的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications
International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 工程技术-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
32
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: With ever increasing pressure for health services in all countries to meet rising demands, improve their quality and efficiency, and to be more accountable; the need for rigorous research and policy analysis has never been greater. The Journal of Health Services Research & Policy presents the latest scientific research, insightful overviews and reflections on underlying issues, and innovative, thought provoking contributions from leading academics and policy-makers. It provides ideas and hope for solving dilemmas that confront all countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信