A comparative analysis of Lagrange multiplier and penalty approaches for modelling fluid-structure interaction

Journal Article (2020)
Author(s)

Jacobus D. Brandsen (TU Delft - Wind Energy)

AC Viré (TU Delft - Wind Energy)

Sergio Turteltaub (TU Delft - Aerospace Structures & Computational Mechanics)

Gerard van Bussel (TU Delft - Wind Energy)

Research Group
Wind Energy
Copyright
© 2020 J.D. Brandsen, A.C. Viré, S.R. Turteltaub, G.J.W. van Bussel
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-04-2020-0183
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2020
Language
English
Copyright
© 2020 J.D. Brandsen, A.C. Viré, S.R. Turteltaub, G.J.W. van Bussel
Research Group
Wind Energy
Issue number
4
Volume number
38
Pages (from-to)
1677-1705
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Purpose: When simulating fluid-structure interaction (FSI), it is often essential that the no-slip condition is accurately enforced at the wetted boundary of the structure. This paper aims to evaluate the relative strengths and limitations of the penalty and Lagrange multiplier methods, within the context of modelling FSI, through a comparative analysis. Design/methodology/approach: In the immersed boundary method, the no-slip condition is typically imposed by augmenting the governing equations of the fluid with an artificial body force. The relative accuracy and computational time of the penalty and Lagrange multiplier formulations of this body force are evaluated by using each to solve three test problems, namely, flow through a channel, the harmonic motion of a cylinder through a stationary fluid and the vortex-induced vibration (VIV) of a cylinder. Findings: The Lagrange multiplier formulation provided an accurate solution, especially when enforcing the no-slip condition, and was robust as it did not require “tuning” of problem specific parameters. However, these benefits came at a higher computational cost relative to the penalty formulation. The penalty formulation achieved similar levels of accuracy to the Lagrange multiplier formulation, but only if the appropriate penalty factor was selected, which was difficult to determine a priori. Originality/value: Both the Lagrange multiplier and penalty formulations of the immersed boundary method are prominent in the literature. A systematic quantitative comparison of these two methods is presented within the same computational environment. A novel application of the Lagrange multiplier method to the modelling of VIV is also provided.

Files

10_1108_EC_04_2020_0183.pdf
(pdf | 5.25 Mb)
- Embargo expired in 05-03-2021
License info not available