Comment on “An improved gray Lattice Boltzmann model for simulating fluid flow in multi-scale porous media”: Intrinsic links between LBE Brinkman schemes

In this Comment on the recent work (Zhu and Ma, 2013) [11] by Zhu and Ma (ZM) we first show that all three local gray Lattice Boltzmann (GLB) schemes in the form (Zhu and Ma, 2013) [11]: GS (Chen and Zhu, 2008; Gao and Sharma, 1994) [1,4], WBS (Walsh et al., 2009) [12] and ZM, fail to get constant Darcy’s velocity in series of porous blocks. This inconsistency is because of their incorrect definition of the macroscopic velocity in the presence of the heterogeneous momentum exchange, while the original WBS model (Walsh et al., 2009) [12] does this properly. We improve the GS and ZM schemes for this and other related deficiencies. Second, we show that the “discontinuous velocity” they recover on the stratified interfaces with their WBS scheme is inherent, in different degrees, to all LBE Brinkman schemes, including ZM scheme. None of them guarantees the stress and the velocity continuity by their implicit interface conditions, even in the frame of the two-relaxation-times (TRT) collision operator where these two properties are assured in stratified Stokes flow, Ginzburg (2007) [5]. Third, the GLB schemes are presented in work (Zhu and Ma, 2013) [11] as the alternative ones to direct, Brinkman-force based (BF) schemes (Freed, 1998; Nie and Martys, 2007) [3,8]. Yet, we show that the BF-TRT scheme (Ginzburg, 2008) [6] gets the solutions of any of the improved GLB schemes for specific, viscosity-dependent choice of its one or two local relaxation rates. This provides the principal difference between the GLB and BF: while the BF may respect the linearity of the Stokes–Brinkman equation rigorously, the GLB-TRT cannot, unless it reduces to the BF via the inverse transform of the relaxation rates. Furthermore, we show that, in limited parameter space, “gray” schemes may run one another. From the practical point of view, permeability values obtained with the GLB are viscosity-dependent, unlike with the BF. Finally, the GLB shares with the BF a so-called anisotropy (Ginzburg, 2008; Nie and Martys, 2007) [6,8], that is, flow-direction-dependency in their effective viscosity corrections, related to the discretized spatial variation of the resistance forcing.