PHYSICAL REVIEW E VOLUME 62, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2000

Theory of the lattice Boltzmann method: Lattice Boltzmann models for nonideal gases
Li-Shi Luo*
Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering, MS 132C, NASA Langley Research Center, 3 West Reid Street,
Building 1152, Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199
共Received 11 September 1998; received manuscript received 20 June 2000兲
In this paper a procedure for systematic a priori derivation of the lattice Boltzmann models for nonideal
gases from the Enskog equation 共the modified Boltzmann equation for dense gases兲 is presented. This treat-
ment provides a unified theory of lattice Boltzmann models for nonideal gases. The lattice Boltzmann equation
is systematically obtained by discretizing the Enskog equation in phase space and time. The lattice Boltzmann
model derived in this paper is thermodynamically consistent up to the order of discretization error. Existing
lattice Boltzmann models for nonideal gases are analyzed and compared in detail. An evaluation of these
models is made in light of the general procedure to construct the lattice Boltzmann model for nonideal gases
presented in this work.

PACS number共s兲: 47.10.⫹g, 47.11.⫹j, 05.20.Dd

I. INTRODUCTION or hydrodynamic behaviors of the system naturally emerge

In recent years, there has been significant progress made
in the development of the lattice Boltzmann equation 共LBE兲
method 关1–6兴, a technique developed for modeling various
complex systems, especially complex fluids. One particular
application of the lattice Boltzmann method which has at-
tracted considerable attention is the modeling of inhomoge-
neous fluids, such as non-ideal gases or multicomponent flu-
ids 关7–12兴. These flows are important, but are difficult to
simulate by conventional techniques of solving the Navier-
Stokes equations. The main difficulty conventional tech-
niques face is due to interfaces in the inhomogeneous flow.
Computationally, one might be able to track a few, but cer-
tainly not very many, interfaces in a system. It is therefore
impractical to simulate a realistic system, which is inhomo-
geneous in density or composition, by directly solving the
Navier-Stokes equations without making some drastic ap-
proximations. One can also view this problem from a differ-
ent perspective: Interfaces between different components or
phases of a fluid system are thermodynamic effects resulting
from interactions among molecules. To solve the Navier-
Stokes equations, one needs to know the equation of state,
which is usually unknown in the interfacial regions. It is
therefore difficult to incorporate thermodynamics into the
Navier-Stokes equations in a consistent fashion, although the
interfaces are precisely the result due to thermodynamic ef-
fects. Hence one encounters some fundamental difficulties.
There exists ample evidence that models based on the
lattice Boltzmann equation, and its predecessor, the lattice-
gas automata 共LGA兲 关13兴, and other gas kinetic models
关14,15兴, are particularly suitable for the complex systems
such as nonideal gases and multicomponent fluids 关8–11兴.
There may be profound reasons for the success of the LGA
and LBE models in simulating those complex systems. The
LGA and LBE models do not start at the macroscopic level;
instead, they start at a mesoscopic level at which one can use
a potential to model interactions in the system. Macroscopic
*Electronic address: luo@icase.edu
from mesoscopic dynamics, provided that the mesoscopic
dynamics possesses necessary and correct conservation laws
with associated symmetries such as rotational invariance,
Galilean invariance, etc. It is well known that the macro-
scopic behavior of a hydrodynamic system is rather insensi-
tive to the microscopic or mesoscopic details—the details of
microscopic or mesoscopic dynamics only affect the numeri-
cal values of the transport coefficients. This observation is a
key physical insight into the construction of simplistic ki-
netic models such as the lattice gas automata and the lattice
Boltzmann equation.
Historically, the lattice Boltzmann equation was first de-
veloped empirically 关1–3兴 from its predecessor—the lattice-
gas automata 关13兴. This empiricism influences even the most
recent lattice Boltzmann models 关8–11兴. Empirical lattice
Boltzmann models usually have some inherent artifacts
which are not yet fully understood. One particular problem
with nonideal gases or multicomponent lattice Boltzmann
models is the thermodynamic inconsistency: The so-called
‘‘equilibrium state’’ in these models cannot be described by
thermodynamics. In particular, one has difficulties in defin-
ing an entropy of the system systematically, and thus leading
to, for instance, the inconsistency between the thermody-
namic pressure and the kinetic one 关16兴. Although this issue
was previously mentioned 关9兴, no progress has been made in
solving this problem, despite its paramount importance.
It is well understood that the original Boltzmann equation
only describes rarefied gases; it does not describe dense
gases or liquids. In the Boltzmann gas limit 共BGL兲, N→⬁,
m→0, and r 0 →0, Nm→ finite, Nr 20 → finite, and Nr 30 →0,
where N, m, and r 0 are the particle number, particle mass,
and interaction range, respectively. Thus, in the BGL, the
mean free path l⬃1/Nr 20 remains constant, while the total
interaction volume Nr 30 goes to zero. Therefore, in the strict
thermodynamic sense, the Boltzmann equation only retains
the thermodynamic properties of a perfect gas—there is no
contribution to the transport of molecular properties from
inter-particle forces, although collisions influenced by inter-
particle interaction are considered. In order to properly de-

1063-651X/2000/62共4兲/4982共15兲/$15.00 PRE 62 4982 ©2000 The American Physical Society

PRE 62 THEORY OF THE LATTICE BOLTZMANN METHOD:
scribe non-ideal dense gases, the effect of finite particle size,
for instance, must be explicitly considered. It was Enskog
who first extended the Boltzmann equation to dense gases by
including the volume exclusion effect along the rationale of
van der Waals theory 关17兴, which leads to a nonideal gas
equation of state. The Enskog equation 共the modified Boltz-
mann equation for dense gases兲 can indeed describe dense
gases or liquids with a nonideal gas equation of state to a
certain extent. The Enskog equation describes a system con-
sisting of hard spheres, and it has been shown that the hard-
sphere system captures most qualitative properties of a
simple liquid 关18,19兴. Furthermore, the revised Enskog
theory seems to be valid for a wide range of densities cov-
ering gasses, liquids, and even solids 关20兴.
It was recently demonstrated 关21兴 that the lattice Boltz-
mann equation can be directly derived from the continuous
Boltzmann equation. The method proposed in Refs. 关21兴 is a
general procedure to construct lattice Boltzmann models in a
systematic and a priori fashion. Through this procedure we
can better understand the approximation made in the lattice
Boltzmann equation. The method also provides a means to
analyze the existing lattice Boltzmann models. In this paper,
the method of Refs. 关21兴 is applied to obtain the lattice
Boltzmann equation for nonideal gases 共which have a non-
ideal gas equation of state兲. The lattice Boltzmann equation
for nonideal gases is derived from the Enskog equation for
dense gases. The obtained lattice Boltzmann model for iso-
thermal nonideal gases has a thermodynamic consistency in
the sense of approximation, i.e., it is only correct up to the
order of discretization. We compare our model with the ex-
isting ones. In comparing all models, we would like to stress
the fact that many defects of the existing LBE models are
due to errors made at the level of fundamental concepts,
rather than at the level of numerical implementation.
This paper is a detailed extension of a work previously
published 关22兴, and is organized as follows. In Sec. II the
Enskog equation for dense gases with the Bhatnagar-Gross-
Krook 共BGK兲 approximation 关23兴 is briefly discussed. In
Sec. III the discretization procedure to obtain the lattice Bolt-
zmann equation for nonideal gases from the Enskog equation
is described. The discretization in time and phase space, the
small velocity expansion of the equilibrium distribution, and
the realization of the forcing term in the lattice Boltzmann
equation are also discussed in detail. In Sec. IV the hydro-
dynamics and some related thermodynamic quantities of the
model are given. In Sec. V the model derived in this work is
compared with other existing lattice Boltzmann models for
nonideal gases, and the similarities and differences among
the existing models are explicitly shown. Section VI con-
cludes the paper. A more detailed discussion of the Enskog
equation for dense gases, and a derivation of the collision
term leading to a nonideal gas equation of state, are provided
in Appendix A. The Chapman-Enskog analysis for the lattice
Boltzmann model for nonideal gases is demonstrated in Ap-
pendix B. In Appendix C, the forcing term in the Boltzmann
equation is derived directly from an equilibrium distribution
function shifted by acceleration due to an external field. This
provides a simple and clear derivation of the models utilizing
the external force to mimic the nonideal gas effect.
... 4983
II. ENSKOG EQUATION FOR DENSE GASES
The Enskog equation 关17,24,25兴 explicitly includes the ra-
dius of colliding particles, r 0 , in the collision integral,
⳵ t f ⫹ ␰•“ f ⫹a•“ ␰ f ⫽J, 共1a兲
J⫽ 冕 d ␮1 关 g 共 x⫹r 0 r̂兲 f 共 x, ␰⬘ 兲 f 共 x⫹2r 0 r̂, ␰⬘1 兲
⫺g 共 x⫺r 0 r̂兲 f 共 x, ␰兲 f 共 x⫺2r 0 r̂, ␰1 兲兴 , 共1b兲
where f is the single particle 共mass兲 distribution function, ␰
and a are the particle velocity and acceleration, g is the radial
distribution function, r̂ is the unit vector in the direction from
the center of the second particle of f (x, ␰1 ) to the center of
the first particle of f (x, ␰) at the instant of contact during a
collision, and ␮1 is the collisional space of the second par-
ticle of f (x, ␰1 ). If we expand the collision operator J in a
Taylor series about x, use the BGK approximation 关23,25–
27兴, and assume the fluid to be isothermal and incompress-
ible, we obtain the equations 共details refer to Appendix A兲
g
⳵ t f ⫹ ␰•“ f ⫹a•“ ␰ f ⫽⫺ 关 f ⫺ f (0) 兴 ⫹J ⬘ , 共2a兲
␭
J ⬘ ⫽⫺ f (0) b ␳ g 共 ␰⫺u兲 •“ ln共 ␳ 2 g 兲 , 共2b兲
where ␭ is the relaxation time which characterizes a typical
collision process, and f (0) is the Maxwell local equilibrium
distribution function 关28兴 given by
1
f (0) 共 ␳ ,u, ␪ 兲 ⫽ ␳ 0 共 2 ␲ ␪ 兲 ⫺D/2exp关 ⫺ 共 ␰⫺u兲 2 /2 ␪ ⫺U 共 x兲 / ␪ 兴 ,
z
共3兲
where D is the dimension of the momentum space ␰; ␳ , u,
and ␪ ⫽k B T/m are mass density, macroscopic velocity, and
the normalized temperature, respectively; k B , T, and m are
the Boltzmann constant, temperature, and molecular mass,
respectively; U(x) is a mean-field external potential 共per unit
mass兲;
␳ 0⫽
1
V
冕 dxd ␰ f (0) 共4兲
is the average mass density in the system of volume V; and
z共 ␪ 兲⬅
1
V
冕V
dx exp关 ⫺U 共 x兲 / ␪ 兴 . 共5兲
The first order collision term J ⬘ in Eqs. 共2兲 includes the
volume exclusion effect 共see Appendix A for details兲. In the
original work of Enskog, g⫽g(b ␳ ), and b is the second
virial coefficient in the virial expansion of the equation of
state for the hard-sphere system 关17兴. The hydrodynamic mo-
ments, i.e., mass density ␳ , velocity u, normalized tempera-
ture ␪ , and energy density e can be defined as follows:
␳⫽ 冕 d ␰ f (0) ⫽ 冕 1
d ␰ f ⫽ ␳ 0 exp共 ⫺U/ ␪ 兲 ,
z
共6a兲
4984 LI-SHI LUO PRE 62

␳ u⫽ 冕 d ␰␰ f (0) ⫽ 冕 d ␰␰ f , 共6b兲
operator, represented by a collision cross section. In particu-
lar, the collision operator reduces to a parameter ␭ of the
single relaxation time in the case of the BGK equation. In the
D
2
␳␪⫽ 冕 d␰
1
2
共 ␰⫺u兲 2 f (0)
limit of the BGL, the interactions among particles have no
effect other than changing the numerical value of the viscos-
ity, as clearly illustrated by the BGK model. Therefore, non-
⫽ 冕 d␰
1
2
共 ␰⫺u兲 2 f , 共6c兲
ideal gas effects are not included in the Boltzmann equation.
To exhibit nonideal gas effects in the thermodynamic limit,

冕 ␰冋 册
the finite range of interactions among particles in the same
1 limit 共the finite size effect or the volume exclusion effect兲,
␳ e⫽ d 共 ␰⫺u兲 2 ⫹U 共 x兲 f (0) which causes nonideal gas effects, must be explicitly consid-
2

冕 ␰冋 册
1 models use some form of one-body interaction to mimic non-
⫽ d 共 ␰⫺u兲 2 ⫹U 共 x兲 f .
2 ideal gas effects. This approximation of multiparticle inter-
The acceleration a is purely due to the external field, U(x),
i.e.,
a⬅ ␰˙ ⫽⫺“U.
For the Enskog equation or the revised Enskog equation,
both global 关29兴 and local 关30,31兴 H theorems can be proved.
It should be clearly emphasized that the acceleration a is
due to a self-consistent external field which is one-body in-
teraction in nature, as clearly and explicitly illustrated in the
derivation of the Boltzmann equation from Liouville equa-
tion via Born-Bogoliubov-Green-Kirkwood-Yvon hierarchy
关24,25,27,32,33兴. In other words, the potential U in the Max-
wellian defined by Eq. 共3兲 only represents an external field of
body-force type, and this self-consistent mean-field interac-
tion should not be confused with genuine multibody interac-
tions that exist in nonideal gases. In the Boltzmann equation,
all the interactions among particles 共multibody interactions兲
involved in a collision process are considered in the collision
ered. As is shown in detail below in Sec. V, the existing LBE
共6d兲
action by some self-consistent, mean-field, one-body interac-
tion seems to allow LBE models to simulate isothermal
nonideal gases because the effect of pressure and forcing can
be distinguishable in the momentum equation. However, this
共7兲
is no longer true in the energy equation. Pressure and forcing
act quite differently in the energy equation: the former af-
fects the energy transport as P“•u, whereas the latter works
as ␳ a•u. In addition, multiparticle interactions affect the heat
conductivity whereas the forcing does not. This suggests that
the approximation obtained by using a body force to replace
multiparticle interaction to mimic the nonideal gas effect
would inevitably lead to some adverse consequences. The
only way to correctly model nonideal gases is to at least
include the ‘‘finite-size effect’’ explicitly. The Enskog equa-
tion is one such model.
A formal solution of the Enskog equation with the BGK
approximation, 关Eq. 共2兲兴, can be obtained by integrating
along characteristic line ␰ over a time interval of length ␦ t
关33兴:

f 共 x⫹ ␰␦ t ⫹ 1
2 a␦ 2t , ␰⫹a␦ t ,t⫹ ␦ t 兲 ⫽e ⫺ ␦ t g/␭ f 共 x, ␰,t 兲 ⫹
g ⫺ ␦ g/␭
␭
e t 冕 0
␦t
e t ⬘ g/␭ f (0) 共 x⬘ , ␰⫹at ⬘ ,t⫹t ⬘ 兲 dt ⬘

⫹e ⫺ ␦ t g/␭ 冕
0
␦t
e t ⬘ g/␭ J ⬘ 共 x⬘ , ␰⫹at ⬘ ,t⫹t ⬘ 兲 dt ⬘

⫺e ⫺ ␦ t g/␭ a• 冕 0
␦t
e t ⬘ g/␭ “ ␰ f 共 x⬘ , ␰⫹at ⬘ ,t⫹t ⬘ 兲 dt ⬘ , 共8兲

where x⬘ ⬅x(t)⫹ ␰t ⬘ ⫹ 21 at ⬘ 2 is the 共approximated兲 trajectory
under the influence of an external field.1 The approximation
is made by the assumption that the acceleration a is a con-
stant locally. Note that the above equation is implicit not
only because of the term “ ␰ f , but also the time dependence
of hydrodynamic moments ␳ , u, and ␪ in the equilibrium
f (0) and the first order collision term J ⬘ .
Our derivation of the lattice Boltzmann equation is based
1
We neglected the term of t ⬘ 2 in Ref. 关22兴 because it does not
affect the final result.
upon a discretization of the above integral solution of the
Enskog equation. In what follows, we show that the lattice
Boltzmann equation is an explicit finite difference scheme
for solving the above integral solution of the Enskog equa-
tion.
III. DERIVATION OF LATTICE BOLTZMANN
EQUATION
A. Discretization in time
By using the mean-value theorem, we can rewrite the in-
tegral solution of the BGK Enskog equation 共8兲 as
PRE 62 THEORY OF THE LATTICE BOLTZMANN METHOD: ... 4985

1 ⫺ ␦ (1⫺ ⑀ )g/␭ (0)

f 共 x⫹ ␰␦ t ⫹ 21 a␦ 2t , ␰⫹a␦ t ,t⫹ ␦ t 兲 ⫽e ⫺ ␦ t g/␭ f 共 x, ␰,t 兲 ⫹ e t f 关 x⑀ , ␰⫹a⑀ ␦ t ,t⫹ ⑀ ␦ t 兴 ␦ t
␭
⫹e ⫺ ␦ t (1⫺ ⑀ )g/␭ J ⬘ 关 x⑀ , ␰⫹a⑀ ␦ t ,t⫹ ⑀ ␦ t 兴 ␦ t
⫺e ⫺ ␦ t (1⫺ ⑀ )g/␭ a•“ ␰ f 关 x⑀ , ␰⫹a⑀ ␦ t ,t⫹ ⑀ ␦ t 兴 ␦ t , 共9兲

where ⑀ is a constant between 0 and 1, and x ⑀ ⬅x(t)⫹ ␰⑀ ␦ t
⫹ 12 a( ⑀ ␦ t ) 2 . If we assume that ␦ t is small enough, and f (0) ,
J ⬘ , and “ ␰ f are smooth enough, locally in phase space, we
can neglect the terms of the order O( ␦ 2t ) or smaller in the
Taylor expansion of Eq. 共9兲, and obtain
perhaps more stringent than necessary because energy flux is
usually not considered in the isothermal case.兲 Because of
the second order polynomial contained in f (eq) given by Eq.
共11兲, the quadrature which must be evaluated exactly is

f 共 x⫹ ␰␦ t , ␰,t⫹ ␦ t 兲 ⫺ f 共 x, ␰,t 兲 冕 d ␰␰ k exp共 ⫺ ␰ 2 /2 ␪ 兲 , 0⭐k⭐5. 共14兲

1 Because of the exponential function in the above integral, the

⫽⫺ 关 f 共 x, ␰,t 兲 ⫺ f (0) 共 x, ␰,t 兲兴 Gaussian quadrature 关34兴 is a natural choice for the evalua-
␶
tion of the integral. With a kth order polynomial ␺ k (x) of x,
⫹J ⬘ 共 x, ␰,t 兲 ␦ t ⫺a•“ ␰ f 共 x, ␰,t 兲 ␦ t , 共10兲 the Gaussian quadrature defined by the equation
where ␶ ⬅␭/ ␦ t is the dimensionless relaxation time. It is
冕
n
⬁
obvious that the accuracy of the above equation is only
⫺⬁
dx ␺ k 共 x 兲 e ⫺x 2 /2
⫽ 兺
␣ ⫽1
W ␣␺ k共 x ␣ 兲 共15兲
first order in time. Consequently the accuracy of the lattice
Boltzmann equations derived from the above equation is also is exact for 0⭐k⭐2n⫺1, where W ␣ and x ␣ are the weights
first order in time in principle. and the abscissas of the quadrature, respectively.

B. Low Mach number expansion and phase space C. Forcing term

discretization
The forcing term, a•“ ␰ f must be constructed explicitly
There are two steps in the derivation of lattice Boltzmann in the lattice Boltzmann equation. We use the moment con-
equation from Eq. 共10兲: 共a兲 construction of an appropriate straint to construct this term. The moments 共up to the second
equilibrium distribution function, and 共b兲 a coherent discreti- order兲 of the forcing term are
zation of phase space. For the isothermal case, the equilib-
rium distribution function can be obtained by truncation of
the Taylor expansion of f (0) up to second order in u: 冕 d ␰ a•“ ␰ f ⫽ 冕 d ␰ a•“ ␰ f (0) ⫽0, 共16a兲

冕 冕
1
f (eq) ⫽ ␳ 0 共 2 ␲ ␪ 兲 ⫺D/2 exp共 ⫺U/ ␪ 兲 d ␰␰ a•“ ␰ f ⫽ d ␰␰ a•“ ␰ f (0) ⫽⫺ ␳ a, 共16b兲
z

⫻exp共 ⫺ ␰2 /2␪ 兲 1⫹ 冋 共 ␰•u兲

␪
⫹
共 ␰•u兲 2
2␪2
⫺
u2
2␪ 册 冕 d ␰␰ i ␰ j a•“ ␰ f ⫽ 冕 d ␰␰ i ␰ j a•“ ␰ f (0) ⫽⫺ ␳ 共 a i u j ⫹a j u i 兲 .

冋 册
共16c兲
共 ␰•u兲 共 ␰•u兲 2 u2
⫽ ␳␻ 共 ␰兲 1⫹ ⫹ ⫺ , 共11兲 Here, we note that f can be replaced 共or approximated兲 by
␪ 2␪2 2␪
f (0) without affecting the moments of the forcing term up to
where the second order in ␰—in general the replacement of f by f (0)
does not hold for the moments higher than the third order in
␻ 共 ␰兲 ⫽ 共 2 ␲ ␪ 兲 ⫺D/2 exp共 ⫺ ␰2 /2␪ 兲 . 共12兲 ␰. This is owing to the fact that f and f (0) have exactly the
same conserved 共or hydrodynamic兲 moments, a constraint on
The phase space discretization has to be done in such a way the normal solution of the Boltzmann equation in the
that not only all hydrodynamic moments, but also their cor- Chapman-Enskog analysis.
responding fluxes, are preserved exactly. This implies that The forcing term a•“ ␰ f can be written in terms of an
the following quadrature must be evaluated exactly: expansion in ␰ as

冕 a•“ ␰ f ⫽ ␳␻ 共 ␰兲关 c (0) ⫹c (1)

i ␰ i ⫹c i j ␰ i ␰ j ⫹••• 兴 , 共17兲
(2)
d ␰␰ fk (eq)
, 0⭐k⭐3, 共13兲
where the Einstein notation of summation for the repeated
for isothermal models. 共Here we require that not only all the Roman indices i, j, . . . is used. The first few coefficient
hydrodynamic moments, but also the corresponding fluxes, c i(n)i •••i can be easily obtained by using the moment con-
1 2 n
are computed exactly by the quadrature. This requirement is straints given by Eqs. 共16兲 if the above expansion is trun-
4986 LI-SHI LUO PRE 62

cated. With the truncated expansion up to the second order in system 共in ␰ space兲 is used in this case, and accordingly we
␰ and the first order in u, we obtain set ␺ ( ␰)⫽ ␰ kx ␰ ly . Thus the quadrature needed to be evaluated
is the
1
c (0) ⫽ a•u, 共18a兲 I⫽ ␰ Tk⫹l⫹2 I k I l , 共20兲
␰ T2
where
1
i ⫽⫺
c (1) a , 共18b兲
冕
2 i
␰T ⬁ 2
I k⬅ d ␨␨ k e ⫺ ␨ /2, 共21兲
⫺⬁
1
i j ⫽⫺
c (2) 共 a i u j ⫹a j u i 兲 , 共18c兲
2 ␰ T4 and ␨ ⫽ ␰ x / ␰ T or ␰ y / ␰ T . Naturally, the third-order Hermite
formula 关34兴 is the optimal choice to evaluate I k for the
where ␰ T ⬅ 冑␪ is proportional to the thermal velocity of a purpose of deriving the nine-velocity LBE model, i.e., I k
particle at temperature T. Therefore, up to the order of O(u) ⫽ 兺 3j⫽1 ␻ j ␨ kj . The three abscissas ( ␨ j ) and the corresponding
and O( ␰ 2 ), we have weights ( ␻ j ) of the quadrature are

a•“ ␰ f ⫽⫺ ␳␻ 共 ␰兲 ␰ T⫺2 关共 ␰⫺u兲 ⫹ ␰ T⫺2 共 ␰•u兲 ␰兴 •a. 共19兲 ␨ 1 ⫽⫺ 冑3, ␨ 2 ⫽0, ␨ 3 ⫽ 冑3, 共22a兲
Note that in the above expansion, only terms up to first order
in u have been retained, because there is an overall factor of ␻ 1 ⫽ 冑␲ /6, ␻ 2 ⫽2 冑␲ /3, ␻ 3 ⫽ 冑␲ /6. 共22b兲
␦ t in the forcing term, as indicated in Eq. 共10兲. Also ␦ t is
O(u) in the Chapman-Enskog analysis for the lattice Boltz- Then the integral of Eq. 共15兲 becomes

mann equation 共see Appendix B for an explanation兲. It
should be stressed that every term in the Boltzmann equation
must be treated equally in terms of maintaining the accuracy.
Specifically speaking, the expansion of the forcing term must
be of the second order in ␰, and the same in the small ex-
pansion parameter ␦ t , in order to be consistent with the ex-
pansion of the equilibrium. It should be noted that there are
other methods to compute the expansion of the forcing term.
Up to second order in ␰ and first order in u, the expansion of
a•“ ␰ f (0) is identical to that of a•“ ␰ f because of the con-
straints given by Eqs. 共16兲. Therefore, the result of Eq. 共19兲
can be obtained by computing a•“ ␰ f (0) explicitly.
It should be pointed out that there is another way to in-
clude the effect of forcing due to an external field. Assuming
that multibody interactions among the particles in the system
are of short range, and the mean free path of a particle is
much larger than the interaction range, then a particle is ac-
celerated only by the external field between collisions. Thus
the net effect of the acceleration due to the external field
during the mean free time is an increment of particle veloc-
ity. Therefore, one can use an equilibrium distribution func-
tion with a velocity shift to account for the effect of the
forcing due to the external field 关35兴, i.e., f (0) ( ␳ ,u, ␪ ) be-
comes f (0) ( ␳ ,u⫺a␶ ␦ t , ␪ ) in the presence of an external
field. Naturally, the accelerated equilibrium distribution
function f (0) ( ␳ ,u⫺a␶ ␦ t , ␪ ) leads to a forcing term in the
lattice Boltzmann equation when discretized 共see Appendix
C for details兲. It should be noted that these two approaches
are equivalent up to the first order in ␦ t . At a higher order of
␦ t the velocity shift in the equilibrium distribution will intro-
冋 册
4 8
I⫽2 ␰ T2 ␻ 22 ␺ 共 0兲 ⫹ 兺
␣ ⫽1
␻ 1 ␻ 2 ␺ 共 ␰␣ 兲 ⫹ 兺
␣ ⫽5
␻ 21 ␺ 共 ␰␣ 兲 ,
共23兲
where ␰␣ is the zero velocity vector for ␣ ⫽0, one of the
vectors of 冑3 ␰ T (⫾1,0) and 冑3 ␰ T (0,⫾1) for ␣ ⫽1 –4, and
one of the vectors of 冑3 ␰ T (⫾1,⫾1) for ␣ ⫽5 –8. Note that
the above quadrature is exact for the integral defined by Eq.
共21兲 when k⭐5.
Now momentum space is discretized with nine discrete
velocities 兵 ␰␣ 兩 ␣ ⫽0,1, . . . ,8 其 . To obtain the nine-velocity
model, the configuration space is discretized accordingly,
i.e., it is discretized into a square lattice space with a lattice
constant ␦ x ⫽ 冑3 ␰ T ␦ t . It should be stressed that the tempera-
ture T 共or ␪ 兲 is a constant here because we are only dealing
with an isothermal model. We can therefore choose ␦ x to be
a fundamental quantity instead; thus 冑3 ␰ T ⫽c⬅ ␦ x / ␦ t , or ␪
⫽ ␰ T2 ⫽c 2 /3. Thus the phase space is discretized coherently:
the discretizations of the velocity space and the configuration
space are closely coupled together. This is one feature of the
lattice Boltzmann equation distinctive from other finite dif-
ference schemes.
By comparing Eqs. 共15兲 and 共23兲, we can identify the
weights defined in Eq. 共15兲,
W ␣ ⫽2 ␲␰ T2 exp共 ␰␣2 /2␰ T2 兲 w ␣ , 共24兲
where

再
duce nonlinear terms which are different from what are de-
rived from the continuous equation. 4/9, ␣ ⫽0
w ␣⫽ 1/9, ␣ ⫽1,2,3,4 共25兲
D. Two-dimensional nine-velocity model on a square lattice 1/36, ␣ ⫽5,6,7,8.
We now use the two-dimensional nine-velocity LBE
model on a square lattice space as a concrete example to Then the equilibrium distribution function for the nine-
illustrate our discretization scheme. A Cartesian coordinate velocity model is
PRE 62 THEORY OF THE LATTICE BOLTZMANN METHOD: ... 4987

f ␣(eq) ⫽W ␣ f (eq) 共 x, ␰␣ ,t 兲 F. The lattice Boltzmann equation

冋 册
The first order collision term, J ⬘ of Eq. 共2b兲, can be ex-
3 共 e␣ •u兲 9 共 e␣ •u兲 2 3u2 plicitly written in a discrete form:
⫽w ␣ ␳ 1⫹ ⫹ ⫺ , 共26兲
c2 2c 4 2c 2
J ␣⬘ ⫽⫺ f (0) b ␳ g 共 e␣ ⫺u兲 •“ ln共 ␳ 2 g 兲 . 共32兲
where
With the discretized J ⬘ included, the lattice Boltzmann equa-

再
tion for dense gases is
共 0,0 兲 , ␣ ⫽0
e␣ ⫽ 共 cos ␾ ␣ ,sin ␾ ␣ 兲 c, ␣ ⫽1,2,3,4 共27兲 f ␣ 共 x⫹e␣ ␦ t ,t⫹ ␦ t 兲 ⫺ f ␣ 共 x,t 兲
共 cos ␾ ␣ ,sin ␾ ␣ 兲 冑2c, ␣ ⫽5,6,7,8, g
⫽⫺ 关 f ␣ 共 x,t 兲 ⫺ f ␣(eq) 共 x,t 兲兴 ⫺b ␳ g f ␣(eq) 共 x,t 兲
␶
and ␾ ␣ ⫽( ␣ ⫺1) ␲ /2 for ␣ ⫽1 –4, and ␾ ␣ ⫽( ␣ ⫺5) ␲ /2
⫹ ␲ /4 for ␣ ⫽5 –8. ⫻ 共 e␣ ⫺u兲 •“ 共 ␳ 2 g 兲 ⫺F ␣ ␦ t , 共33兲

where the forcing F ␣ is given by Eq. 共28兲. The hydrody-

E. Discretized forcing term
namic moments in the lattice Boltzmann models are given by
Applying the same discretization to the forcing term of
Eq. 共19兲, we have the discretized forcing term for the nine-
velocity model: ␳⫽ 兺␣ f ␣⫽ 兺␣ f ␣(eq) , 共34a兲

F ␣ ⫽⫺3 w ␣ ␳ 冋 1
c 2
共 e␣ ⫺u兲 ⫹3
共 e␣ •u兲
c4
册
e␣ •a. 共28兲 ␳ u⫽ 兺␣ e␣ f ␣ ⫽ 兺␣ e␣ f ␣(eq) , 共34b兲

The forcing in the above equation satisfies the following con- 1 1

straints: ␳␪⫽
2 兺␣ 共 e␣ ⫺u兲 2 f ␣ ⫽ 2 兺␣ 共 e␣ ⫺u兲 2 f ␣(eq) . 共34c兲

The first order collision term J ␣⬘ involves the density gradient

兺␣ F ␣ ⫽0, 共29a兲
“ ␳ , which can be explicitly computed by either the second
order central differencing

兺␣ e␣ F ␣ ⫽⫺ ␳ a, 共29b兲 e␣ •“ ␳ 共 x兲 ␦ t ⫽ 21 关 ␳ 共 x⫹e␣ ␦ t 兲 ⫺ ␳ 共 x⫺e␣ ␦ t 兲兴

or the first order differencing

兺␣ e␣ ,i e␣ , j F ␣ ⫽⫺ ␳ 共 u i a j ⫹u j a i 兲 . 共29c兲 e␣ •“ ␳ 共 x兲 ␦ t ⫽ ␳ 共 x⫹e␣ ␦ t 兲 ⫺ ␳ 共 x兲 .

The alternative would be to construct a collision term similar

The above constraints are the discrete counterpart of Eqs. to the original Enskog collision term given by Eq. 共1b兲, with-
共16兲. If only the first two moment equations in Eqs. 共29兲 are out the Taylor expansion in space.
to be satisfied, and the third constraint of Eq. 共29c兲 is re-
placed by
IV. HYDRODYNAMICS AND THERMODYNAMICS

Through the Chapman-Enskog analysis 共see Appendix B

兺␣ e␣ ,i e␣ , j F ␣ ⫽0, 共30兲 for the details兲, the hydrodynamic equations of the lattice
Boltzmann model for dense gases, given by Eq. 共33兲 with the
the forcing term thus reduces to equilibrium of Eq. 共26兲, are

⳵ t ␳ ⫹“• 共 ␳ u兲 ⫽0, 共35a兲

共 e␣ •a兲
F ␣ ⫽⫺3 w ␣ ␳ . 共31兲
c2 1
⳵ t u ⫹u•“u⫽⫺ “ P⫹ ␯ “ 2 u⫹a, 共35b兲
␳
The above forcing term is what has often been used for con-
stant body force in the literature 关36,37兴. The adversity of where the viscosity
using the above forcing term is that the Galilean invariance
is lost if a is not a constant in space. In addition, the work 共 2 ␶ ⫺g 兲
done by the forcing, ␳ a•u, does not appear in the energy ␯⫽ c␦x , 共36兲
6g
balance equation, and thus leads to an incorrect energy bal-
ance equation. As shown in Sec. V, the forcing terms of and the pressure 共or the equation of state兲 is given by
similar forms are used to produce various nonideal gas ef-
fects in previous models 关8–11兴. P⫽ ␳ ␪ 共 1⫹b ␳ g 兲 . 共37兲
4988 LI-SHI LUO PRE 62

With the above equation of state, the sound speed c s be- charging the value of b 兰 gd ␳ 共or simply just b) in the free
comes energy density ␺ relative to the temperature ␪ , as indicated

冋 册
d charged, because it is a fixed constant in the isothermal LBE
c s2 ⫽ ␪ 1⫹b 共 ␳ 2g 兲 .
d␳
For ideal gas, b⫽0 and g⫽1, and P, ␯ , and c s recover the
previous results for ideal gas. The dependence of the viscos-
ity ␯ on g can be removed by replacing g in the BGK colli-
sion term by 1.
Although in the original work of Enskog 共see Ref. 关17兴兲, g
only accommodates the volume exclusion effect, or repulsive
interaction, in the gas of hard spheres, there is no reason to
prohibit the inclusion of a more general interaction. Indeed, g
can be somewhat arbitrary, depending on the interaction. The
radial distribution function g provides a freedom to alter the
transport coefficients ( ␯ and c s ) as well as the equation of
state. However, it should be stressed that there are bounds to
this freedom. From Eq. 共36兲, it becomes obvious that the
model is stable if and only if ␶ ⬎g/2. This suggests that g
also affects the numerical stability of the system. In addition,
the sound speed can be changed by g. But one must not
expect to achieve c s ⭓c⫽ ␦ x / ␦ t or the basic principle of
physics would be violated, because c limits the speed of
information propagation in the LBE system. Therefore, there
are bounds to the values of g and derivative of ␳ 2 g.
With the equation of the state given, the Helmholtz free
energy density can be given by
␺共 ␳ 兲⫽␳ 冕␳P
2
冋
d ␳ ⫽ ␳ ␪ ln ␳ ⫹b 冕 ␳册
gd , 共39兲
because
d␺
P⫽ ␳ ⫺␺.
d␳
by Eq. 共39兲. Bear in mind that the temperature ␪ cannot be
共38兲
models. It should be noted that g should be computed with a
given potential in principle. The above manipulation to ob-
tain g is not based upon principles of physics. Also, the use
of the free energy adds nothing to the physics of the model,
but only reflects a matter of custom or preference.
V. OTHER MODELS
What we propose in this work is a systematic construction
of the lattice Boltzmann equation in a consistent and a priori
fashion, with the premise that the continuous Boltzmann
equation is adequate to describe underlying physics of the
systems of interest. In particular, for nonideal gases, one
must use the Enskog equation for dense gases instead of the
original Boltzmann equation for dilute gases. In light of this
viewpoint, a survey of the existing LBE models for nonideal
gases is now in order. We discuss two lattice Boltzmann
models for nonideal gases which were independently pro-
posed by Shan and Chen 关8兴 Swift, Osborn, and Yeomans
关9兴. In spite of the significant differences in their appearances
and technical details, these models share one common fea-
ture in their constructions of the lattice Boltzmann model for
nonideal gases: The derivation of the lattice Boltzmann mod-
els is mainly accomplished by constructing a phenomeno-
logical equilibrium distribution function which can accom-
modate nonideal gas effects and which satisfies all the
conservation constraints, and therefore leads to hydrodynam-
ics. In what follows, we shall analyze these two models and
explicitly demonstrate the difference between the model de-
rived in this paper and the aforementioned two.
共40兲
A. Model with interacting potential

And the radial distribution function g can also be computed
from either P or ␺ . That is, with either P or ␺ given, one can
derive all the relevant thermodynamic quantities from the
free energy ␺ . For example, given the van der Waals equa-
tion of state,
In the model proposed by Shan and Chen 关8兴, a local
density-dependent potential U„␳ (x)…⬀G␪␺ 2 ( ␳ ) is explicitly
given, where G is the interaction strength and ␺ is an arbi-
trary function of density ␳ . The change of the particle veloc-
ity ␰ 共not the macroscopic velocity u) due to U(x) is

P⫽ ␳ ␪ 冋 1 a
⫺ ␳ ,
共 1⫺b ␳ 兲 ␪
册 共41兲
␦ ␰⫽⫺“U 共 x兲 ␶ ␦ t ⫽a ␶ ␦ t ,
and ␦ u⫽⫺ ␦ ␰ is explicitly substituted into the equilibrium
distribution function, i.e.,
where parameter a accounts for the mean result of attractive
potential among particles 关17兴, according to Eqs. 共37兲 and
共41兲 the radial distribution function g is 再
f ␣(eq) ⫽w ␣ ␳ 1⫹
3 关 e␣ • 共 u⫺a␶ ␦ t 兲兴
c2

冎
1 a
g⫽ ⫺ . 9 关 e␣ • 共 u⫺a␶ ␦ t 兲兴 2 3 共 u⫺a␦ t 兲 2
共 1⫺b ␳ 兲 b␪
⫹ ⫺
The corresponding free energy density is 2c 4 2c 2

冋冉 冊 册
␺ ⫽ ␳ ␪ ln
␳
1⫺b ␳
a
⫺ ␳ .
␪
⫽w ␣ ␳ 1⫹冋 3 共 e␣ •u兲
c2
⫹
9 共 e␣ •u兲 2
2c 4
⫺
3u2
2c 2
册
With the free energy and the equation of state defined, the
Maxwell construction 关38兴 to determine the coexistence
curve becomes physically meaningful and consistent. Never-
⫺3 w ␣ ␳ 冋 1
c 2
共 e␣ ⫺u兲 ⫹3
共 e␣ •u兲
c4
册
e␣ •a ␶ ␦ t

theless, care must be taken in conducting the Maxwell con-

struction in the discretized situation. The phenomena of
liquid-gas phase transition can be simulated by the model by
3
⫺ w ␣␳ 2 ⫺
2 c
冋
a2 共 e␣ •a兲 2 2 2
c4
␶ ␦t . 册 共42兲
PRE 62 THEORY OF THE LATTICE BOLTZMANN METHOD: ... 4989

In the above result, the first part is the usual equilibrium
distribution function which has an ideal gas equation of state
built in, and the second part accounts for the interaction or
nonideal gas effects, which is identical to the forcing term
given by Eq. 共28兲, produced by the forcing term a•“ ␰ f in
the streaming operator. By combining the forcing with the
pressure term in the Navier-Stokes equation, the equation of
the state becomes
P⫽ ␳ 关 ␪ ⫹U 共 ␳ 兲兴 .
In the Enskog equation, g is obtained from a hard-sphere gas;
thus the attractive potential has to be inserted through param-
eter a.
It is clear that interparticle interactions are conceived
mathematically as external fields in the aforementioned mod-
els. Perhaps the only plausible justification for this view is
that the interparticle interaction can be approximated by a
self-consistent one-body interaction field 共as in the Vlasov
approximation for Coulomb gases兲. In this case,

Thus nonideal gas effects are obtained through the phenom-

冕 dx2 d ␰2 “ 2 V 12•“ ␰ f 2 共 x, ␰,x2 , ␰2 ,t 兲

enological potential U( ␳ ). To achieve the purpose of mim-

icking nonideal gas effects, the leading term in the density
expansion of U has to be of second order in ␳ , i.e., U
⫽“ ␰ f 共 x, ␰,t 兲 • 冕 dx2 d ␰2 f 共 x2 , ␰2 ,t 兲 “ 2 V 12

⬀G␪ ␳ 2 , or ␺ ⬀ ␳ , as specifically indicated in Ref. 关8兴. Obvi- ⫽“ ␰ f •“Ū, 共45兲

ously, the potential U„␳ (x)… is intended to be the interpar-
ticle interaction. However, it is mathematically implemented
as an external field such that its sole effect is to produce a
term “U in the momentum equation 关8兴. The consequence
of this conceptual confusion is that the energy balance equa-
tion is incorrect, because the result of an external field is the
work of ␳ a•u, while the result of the interparticle interaction
is a heat transfer due to the viscous effect, as shown in Ap-
pendix B. Specifically, in the energy equation, the correct
term related to the pressure is P“•u, where the pressure is
exactly the one that appears in the momentum equation.
However, with the one-body interaction, this becomes
␳ ␪ “•u⫹ ␳ “U•u, i.e., the equation of state is not the same
in the momentum equation and the energy equation. Further-
more, the third part in Eq. 共42兲, which is proportional to ␦ 2t
and nonlinear in a, is omitted. This term can be significant
when ␦ t is set to unity, as it is a common practice in the
lattice Boltzmann simulations. It should also be pointed out
that the viscosity in this model remains intact—it is not af-
where the Boltzmann approximation has been invoked, and
“Ū⫽ 冕 dx2 d ␰2 f 共 x2 , ␰2 ,t 兲 “ 2 V 12
defines the self-inconsistent mean-field potential Ū. This ap-
proximation is justified for rarefied collisionless plasma with
Coulomb interactions, and is simply inappropriate for non-
ideal gas systems.
B. Model with free energy
A comparison with the model proposed in Ref. 关9兴 is
slightly more elaborate. Stressing the consistency of thermo-
dynamics in the lattice Boltzmann equation and inspired by
Cahn-Hilliard’s model for surface tension 关40,41兴, the model
proposed by Swift, Osborn, and Yeomans 关9兴 started with a
free energy functional,

冕 冋␬ 册
fected by the potential U.
We have also noted a recent attempt to theoretically jus- ⌿⫽ dx 储 “ ␳ 储 2⫹ ␺共 ␳ 兲 , 共46兲
tify the model of Shan and Chen. With some crude approxi- 2
mations 关11兴, He et al. showed that a desirable forcing term
where ␺ is the bulk free energy density. The free energy
to mimic nonideal gas effects is F ␣ ⬀ f ␣(eq) (e␣ ⫺u)•F␦ t ,
functional in turn determines the diagonal term of the pres-
where F⬀⫺“V⫺b ␳ ␪ g“ ln(␳2g), and V⫽⫺2a ␳ ⫺ ␬ “ 2 ␳
sure tensor,
accounts for the attractive part in the interparticle interaction.
Without any surprise, this model reproduces an anticipated ␦⌿ ␬
non-ideal gas equation of state, P⬇ ␳ ␪ (1⫹b ␳ g)⫹ ␳ V, and P⫽ ␳ ⫺⌿⫽ p⫺ ␬ ␳ “ 2 ␳ ⫺ 储 “ ␳ 储 2 , 共47兲
avoids the nonlinear term of ␦ 2t in the model of interacting
␦␳ 2
potential, as expected. However, the energy balance equation where
from this model is still incorrect, due to the similarity to the
previous model. It should also be noted that it is conceptually d␺
incorrect to write the pressure as P⬇ ␳ ␪ (1⫹b ␳ g)⫹ ␳ V. One p⫽ ␳ ⫺␺ 共48兲
correct way to generalize the van der Waals equation of state d␳
is writing it as 关39兴
is the equation of state of the fluid. The full pressure tensor is
given by
P⫹a ␳ ⫽ ␪ ␳ 共 1⫹b ␳ g 兲 ,
2
共43兲
Pi j ⫽ P ␦ i j ⫹ ␬ ⳵ i ␳⳵ j ␳ . 共49兲
where parameter a is related to the two-body interaction po-
tential by With the pressure tensor given, the equilibrium distribution
function is constructed such that it not only satisfies the con-
servation constraints of Eqs. 共34兲, but also produces the
a⫽⫺
2 ␲
3 m2
冕 dV 共 r 兲 3
dr
r dr. 共44兲 above pressure tensor by enforcing additional constraints
兺 ␣ f ␣(eq) e␣ ,i e␣ , j ⫽Pi j 关9兴.
4990
To make our analysis as transparent as possible, it is cru-
cial to make an explicit connection between the model of
Swift et al. and the model of Shan and Chen. The equilib-
rium distribution function in the model of Swift et al. with
triangular lattice 关9兴 can be rewritten as
冋 册
1 1 ␬ of the forcing term F ␣ ⬀ ␪ ␸ . This defect can be fixed by
f ␣(eq) ⫽ ␳ 1⫹ 共 e␣ •u兲 ⫹2 共 e␣ •u兲 2 ⫺ u2 ⫹ 兵 共 e␣2 ,x ⫺e2␣ ,y 兲
3 2 3 using a correct forcing term according to Eq. 共28兲, i.e.,
␬ F ␣ ⬀ ␳ 关共 e␣ ⫺u兲 ⫹3 共 e␣ •u兲 e␣ 兴 •“ ␸ .
⫻关共 ⳵ x ␳ 兲 2 ⫺ 共 ⳵ y ␳ 兲 2 兴 ⫹2e␣ ,x e␣ ,y ⳵ x ␳⳵ y ␳ 其 ⫺ ␳ “ 2␳
3
1 ent which also cause the problem of lack of Galilean invari-
⫹ 关 ␳ ␺ ⬘共 ␳ 兲 ⫺ ␺ 共 ␳ 兲 ⫺ ␳ 兴 ,
3 ance 关42兴.
where c⫽ ␦ x / ␦ t is assumed to be unity. The first term in
brackets 关 兴 is nothing but the usual equilibrium distribution
function of the seven-velocity Frisch-Hasslacher-Pomeau
model 关13,21兴. The term in bracket 兵 其 is an expression of the
tensor E i j ⬅(e␣ ,i ⳵ i ␳ )(e␣ , j ⳵ j ␳ ) written in terms of a traceless
and an off-diagonal part with correct symmetry such that all
the terms proportional to ␬ reduce to the term ␬ 关 ␳ “ 2 ␳
⫹ 储 “ ␳ 储 2 /2 兴 in the diagonal part of the pressure tensor, given
by Eq. 共47兲. This term is directly taken from Cahn-Hilliard’s
model, and it induces surface tension due to density gradient
in addition to the part due to the 共nonideal gas兲 equation of
state, but it does not contribute to the hydrodynamic pressure
共or the equation of state兲. The nonideal gas part in the equa-
tion of state is contained in the last part of the above equa-
tion, 关 ␳ ␺ ⬘ ( ␳ )⫺ ␺ ( ␳ )⫺ ␳ 兴 /3, which can be written in a den-
sity expansion in general,
␪ ␸ ⬅ 13 关 ␳ ␺ ⬘ 共 ␳ 兲 ⫺ ␺ 共 ␳ 兲 ⫺ ␳ 兴 ⫽ ␪ ␳ 2 共 B⫹C ␳ ⫹••• 兲 , 共51兲
where coefficients B, C, . . . are virial coefficients. We have
noted that only the leading term in the density expansion of
␸ , B ␳ 2 , is needed in order to capture the nonideal gas ef-
fects, for this term not only leads to a nonideal gas equation
of state, but also provides all the necessary terms to control
the surface tension in Cahn-Hilliard’s model, as
““ ␳ 2 ⫽2 共 ␳ “ 2 ␳ ⫹ 储 “ ␳ 储 2 兲 .
By comparing Eqs. 共50兲 and 共42兲, the connection between
the models of Swift et al. and Shan and Chen becomes ob-
vious if Eq. 共31兲 for the forcing term is used and the equiva-
lence of ␪ ␸ ⫽e␣ •“U⬀F ␣ is established. Thus the model of
Swift et al. uses Eq. 共31兲 for the forcing term, which is only
valid for a constant body force, whereas the model of Shan
and Chen uses Eq. 共28兲 for the forcing term. The interaction
strength in the model of Swift et al. is proportional to tem-
perature ␪ , whereas in the model of Shan and Chen, it is
proportional to a constant G. Since the connection of the two
models can be explicitly established, all the analysis in Sec.
V A can be immediately applied to the present model.
It should be pointed out that at the level of the Boltzmann
equation, the density gradient term, 储 “ ␳ 储 2 , in the free energy
functional, has no justification within the framework of
Chapman-Enskog analysis. 关In fact, the density gradient “ ␳
can only appear in the second order solution of f 共the Burnett
equation 关17兴兲 in the Chapman-Enskog analysis, which is
beyond the Navier-Stokes equations.兴 It is clear that the
LI-SHI LUO PRE 62
analysis presented in Ref. 关9兴 and the subsequent work 关10兴
does not follow the Chapman-Enskog analysis; therefore, it
cannot lead to a mathematically valid derivation of macro-
scopic equations from the mesoscopic equation. Some fur-
ther limitations of the model are discussed next.
First, the model lacks Galilean invariance, mainly because
However, there are other terms involving the density gradi-
共50兲
Second, the ratio between the number of rest particles and
the number of moving particles depends on the local density
gradient. It can be shown that this ratio is related to tempera-
ture, because in the two-speed system, the width of the equi-
librium distribution, which is the temperature, is determined
by this ratio. „To be exact, according to the definition of ␻
2
关Eq. 共12兲兴, the ratio ␻ (0)/ ␻ (c)⫽e c /2 ␪ , which must be a
constant for isothermal fluids.‡ This means that the tempera-
ture may vary locally depending on the density gradient,
while the model is claimed to simulate an isothermal fluid.
Again, this problem can be rectified by using the correct
forcing term mentioned earlier.
Third, the model cannot lead to the correct energy balance
equation for the very same reason that the terms related to
the free energy can be considered as a body force due to a
thermodynamic potential 共free energy in the model兲 which is
a mean-field quantity, as shown in Sec. V A
We stress that the differences between body force terms
and interaction terms cannot be circumvented by technical
tricks such as using a correct forcing term, or including
higher order terms in u in the equilibrium distribution func-
tion f ␣(eq) . The reason for this is obvious: as long as a mean-
field potential, whether an interaction or a free energy, is
employed to mimic nonideal gas effects, the constraints of
Eqs. 共16兲 must be satisfied; therefore, the inconsistency of
the pressure between the momentum equation and the energy
equation arises, regardless of the order 共in u) of the equilib-
rium distribution function— this is true even in the con-
tinuum case. Furthermore, certain terms in the pressure ten-
sor, Pi j , were arbitrarily omitted in the macroscopic
equations derived from the model 关9兴. Therefore, Pi j is not
obtained in a self-consistent manner. Following a similar
analysis, one can also conclude that a multicomponent model
constructed in the same fashion 关10兴 shares some of the same
limitations. One distinctive feature of this model 关9兴 is that,
by using Cahn-Hilliard’s model, the surface tension can be
controlled independently of the equation of state by the den-
sity gradient. This appears to be the reason why the spurious
mass flux is reduced in this model 关9兴.
In a recent work by Holdych et al. 关42兴, it was shown that
the model of Swift et al. does not satisfy the Navier-Stokes
equation, in either the bulk region or interface region, al-
though the LBE model 关9兴 has conservation laws built in
关42兴. Numerous simple hydrodynamic tests showed that the
departure of the model from the Navier-Stokes equation is
rather significant both quantitatively and qualitatively 关42兴.
When the model is used to simulate a simple hydrodynamic
PRE 62 THEORY OF THE LATTICE BOLTZMANN METHOD:
problem such as a single droplet subjected to shear, simula-
tions of the kind presented in a recent work of Wagner and
Yeomans 关43兴 are qualitative, and do not sufficiently validate
numerical predictions of the model.
It should also be noted that the Hamiltonian approach 关8兴
and the free energy approach 关9,10兴 are indeed equivalent in
terms of phenomenology. Given a Hamiltonian H of an in-
teracting N-particle system, the corresponding free energy ⌿
can be obtained via the partition function based upon H.
Thus, in principle, information is neither gained nor lost
whether the problem is formulated in terms of H or ⌿. One
cannot claim that using the free energy and utilizing the
Maxwell construction leads to a better or more physical
model. Perhaps the only advantage of using the free energy
is that ⌿ is a global state variable, and therefore it is inde-
pendent of coordinates. However, this advantage bears no
relevance in the LBE models.
In summary, the main difference between the model de-
rived from the Enskog equation and the existing ones is in
the physics. Our starting point is the Enskog equation for
dense gases in which the nonideal gas effects are naturally
considered, whereas in all other existing models 关8–11兴 the
starting point is the original Boltzmann equation which is
only suitable for dilute gases 共ideal gases兲. This necessitates
various ad hoc approximations. One notable feature common
to these models is that the viscosity is independent of non-
ideal gas effects, which is inconsistent with the Enskog equa-
tion.
VI. CONCLUSION
We are now in the position to lay out the procedure for
constructing a thermodynamically consistent lattice Boltz-
mann equation for nonideal gases. Given interparticle inter-
actions, the radius distribution function g(r) can be com-
puted in principle, and the first order collision term J⬘ in the
Enskog equation can be constructed. This collision term
would correctly produce the nonideal gas effects. With this
term implemented in the lattice Boltzmann model, a thermo-
dynamic and hydrodynamic consistency can be achieved in
the sense of the finite difference approximation. With g
given, the free energy density ␺ can be obtained explicitly.
Subsequently, other pertinent thermodynamic quantities such
as the equation of state, pressure tensor, surface tension, and
so on, can be directly and easily derived from the free en-
ergy, while the correct hydrodynamics is preserved in the
lattice Boltzmann equation.
It should be emphasized that because the Boltzmann
equation describes mesoscopic dynamics, the constraints im-
posed on it must be compatible with the mesoscopic dynam-
ics. Specifically speaking, given an arbitrary interaction in a
system, one can in principle compute the equation of state
共e.g., by means of the virial expansion兲. This is an averaging
process, because macroscopic observables 共the equation of
state, surface tension, etc.兲 are averaged macroscopic quan-
tities. But, the reverse are not true in general: given an arbi-
trary equation of state, one may not be to able to find a
unique corresponding interaction in the mesoscopic descrip-
tion. However, this can be achieved in the formalism of the
lattice Boltzmann equation, owing to the simple structure of
the formalism. Nevertheless, the simplicity of the LBE
... 4991
method does not comes without a price—the inconsistency
in the LBE thermodynamics and discrete effects are inherent
to the LBE models. In contrast to the LBE method, it is also
worthwhile to mention some new approaches more closely
related to standard computational fluid dynamics methods
关44–46兴 which show promise for dealing with the interfacial
problems.
It is a fair observation that so far a large part of the lattice
Boltzmann enterprise rests upon the phenomenology of cre-
ating various ‘‘new’’ equilibrium distribution functions to
accommodate different physical phenomena ranging from
nonideal gases or multi-component fluids 关9,10兴 to viscoelas-
tic media 关47兴. Previous procedures to construct the equilib-
rium distribution can be summarized as follows. By observ-
ing the hydrodynamic equations of a system of interest, one
can anticipate those terms in the equilibrium distribution
which are necessary to produce the desired results 共usually a
desirable stress tensor兲. Then proportionality factors for these
terms are determined by the conservation constraints. It is
evident that this approach lacks mathematical rigor, and that
the models derived in this fashion may suffer from artificial
defects which are uncontrollable, such as the models in Refs.
关9,10,47兴. The problem common to these models is that the
mathematical rigor of the Chapman-Enskog analysis was
completely ignored, as typified by the work in Ref. 关9兴.
It is important to point out that the rigor of the Chapman-
Enskog analysis can be retained without following the view-
point of deriving lattice Boltzmann models via discretization
of the corresponding continuous kinetic equation. Given a set
of discrete velocities on a lattice space with a collision op-
erator obeying conservation laws and associated symmetries,
an orthogonal basis spanned by the eigenvectors of the col-
lision operator can be obtained 关48,49兴. The kinetic modes of
the basis, which are fluxes, can have different relaxation
times 关48,49兴. Not only does this approach overcome some
shortcomings of the single relaxation time method such as a
fixed Prandtl number, but it also follows the Chapman-
Enskog analysis rigorously.
In this paper we carry out a systematic derivation of the
lattice Boltzmann equation for nonideal gases from the En-
skog equation. It should be stressed that the procedure illus-
trated here is general and can be easily extended to other
lattice Boltzmann models, e.g., multicomponent models 关7兴.
This procedure can also be used to improve the accuracy of
the lattice Boltzmann models systematically. Our procedure
can be briefly summarized as follows. First, one can observe
the equation of state of a system, and extract the nonideal gas
part in it. This part is related to the radial distribution func-
tion g(r). From g(r), the first order collision term respon-
sible for it can be constructed. Then one can systematically
discretize the Enskog equation to obtain the corresponding
lattice Boltzmann equation. This approach is not only rigor-
ous, but also systematic. The equilibrium distribution is
uniquely determined in this procedure. It enables one to see
clearly what approximation is made in the derivation of the
lattice Boltzmann equation. In this way it can be shown that
the accuracy of the lattice Boltzmann equation is indeed sec-
ond order in time and space 关51兴.
In addition to an a priori derivation of the lattice Boltz-
mann model for nonideal gases, we explicitly illustrate the
differences between our model and existing ones. Based
4992 LI-SHI LUO PRE 62

upon our analysis, we can conclude that the problem in the
model of interacting potential 关8兴 is a minor one, and can be
easily fixed by either directly using a forcing term as we
proposed, or adding a correction to remove the ␦ 2t dependent
terms. In contrast to the model of an interacting potential, the
model of free energy 关9兴 presents many major problems. It
starts with the intention to correct the thermodynamic incon-
sistency in other models, but it ends up with more serious
inconsistencies, because the pressure tensor in the model is
constructed without any physical basis at the level of the
Boltzmann equation. It is also important to point out that
none of these models can lead to a correct energy balance
equation, and therefore they are inconsistent with their con-
tinuous counterpart—the Boltzmann equation. Starting with
the Enskog equation in the presence of an external field and
through a rigorous discretization procedure, we can obtain a
consistent thermodynamics and hydrodynamics for nonideal
gases in the sense of the discretizing approximation. With
this systematic means, one can use either an interaction or a
free energy to obtain the equation of state, that, when incor-
porated into a collision term, accounts for nonideal gas ef-
fects among the particles. Our future work will extend our
where g is the radial distribution function, r̂ is the unit vector
pointing from the particle f 1 to the particle f, J (n) , n
⫽0,1,2, . . . , are obtained by a Taylor expansion of g, f 1
⬅ f ( ␰1 ), and f 1⬘ ⬅ f ( ␰1⬘ ) in Eq. 共A2a兲 of J about x,
d ␮1 ⫽ 储 ␰1 ⫺ ␰储 ␴ d⍀d ␰1 , 共A3兲
and ␴ and ⍀ are differential collision cross section and the
solid angle in coordinate x space. The Enskog equation is
also called the modified Boltzmann equation in the literature
关25兴.
The term J (0) given by Eq. 共A2b兲 is the usual collision
term in the Boltzmann equation with an extra factor g, which
can be approximated by the BGK approximation, i.e.,
1
J (0) ⫽⫺ 关 f ⫺ f (0) 兴 g, 共A4兲
␭
where f (0) is the equilibrium distribution function of Max-
well and Boltzmann.
The terms J (1) and J (2) can be explicitly evaluated for a
hard sphere potential. For hard spheres of radius r 0 , we have

再
theory to multicomponent fluids, and obtain a consistent
thermodynamics for lattice Boltzmann models. ds⫽2r 0 cos ␽ d ␽ in two dimensions
␴ d⍀⫽
s ds⫽2r 20 sin共 2 ␽ 兲 d ␽ d ␸ in three dimensions,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 共A5兲
The author is particularly grateful to Dr. R. Rubinstein of where ␽ is the azimuthal angle between the z axis parallel to
ICASE for his critical reading of the manuscript. The author ( ␰1 ⫺ ␰) and ( ␰⬘ ⫺ ␰), 0⭐ ␽ ⭐ ␲ /2, ␸ is the polar angle on
would also like to thank Professor R. Fox of the Georgia the plane perpendicular to the z axis, and
Institute of Technology for helpful discussions on the Bolt-
zmann and the Enskog equations, Professor J. Nuttall of the s⫽2r 0 sin ␽ 共A6兲
University of Western Ontario 共UWO兲 for helpful discus-
sions on orthogonal polynomials, and Professor T. Lookman is the impact parameter in the collision. With the approxima-
of UWO for bringing our attention to Ref. 关35兴. tion of f ⬇ f (0) in Eqs. 共A2c兲 and 共A2d兲, we have

J (1) ⫽⫺ f (0) b ␳ 共 ␰⫺u兲 •“g, 共A7a兲

APPENDIX A: MODIFIED BOLTZMANN EQUATION
FOR DENSE GASES

The Boltzmann equation

冋
J (2) ⫽⫺ f (0) b ␳ g 2 共 ␰⫺u兲 •“ ln ␳

⳵ t f ⫹ ␰•“ f ⫹a•“ ␰ f ⫽J 共A1兲 2 共 ␰ i ⫺u i 兲共 ␰ j ⫺u j 兲 ⳵ i u j

⫹
共 D⫹2 兲 ␪

再 冎
can be modified for dense gas by explicitly considering the
volume exclusion effect in the collision term J for hard 1 共 ␰⫺u兲 2
⫹ ⫺1 “•u
spheres of radius r 0 as 关17,24,25兴 共 D⫹2 兲 ␪

J⫽ 冕 d ␮1 关 g 共 x⫹r 0 r̂兲 f 共 x, ␰⬘ 兲 f 共 x⫹2r 0 r̂, ␰⬘1 兲 ⫹

1
再 D
2 共 D⫹2 兲
共 ␰⫺u兲 2
␪ 冎
⫺1 共 ␰⫺u兲 •“ ln ␪ , 册
⫺g 共 x⫺r 0 r̂兲 f 共 x, ␰兲 f 共 x⫺2r 0 r̂, ␰1 兲兴 共A7b兲

⫽J (0) ⫹J (1) ⫹J (2) ⫹•••, 共A2a兲 where b is the second virial coefficient; ␳ , u, and ␪
⫽k B T/m, are the mass density, velocity, and normalized

冕
temperature of fluid, respectively; m is the particle mass; and
J (0) ⫽g d ␮1 共 f ⬘ f 1⬘ ⫺ f f 1 兲 , 共A2b兲 D is the dimension of the ␰ space. In the above equation, the
Einstein notation for summation among repeated indices is

冕␮
used. The second virial coefficient for the hard sphere gas is
J (1) ⫽r 0 d 1 共 f ⬘ f 1⬘ ⫹ f f 1 兲 r̂•“g, 共A2c兲
b⫽V 0 /m, 共A8兲

J (2) ⫽2r 0 g 冕␮ d 1 r̂• 共 f ⬘ “ f 1⬘ ⫹ f “ f 1 兲 , 共A2d兲

where V 0 is the volume of a hard sphere, which is 16␲ r 30 /3
in three dimensions, or ␲ r 20 in two dimensions. Note that
PRE 62 THEORY OF THE LATTICE BOLTZMANN METHOD: ... 4993

b ␳ ⫽V 0 n, where n is the particle number density, is a dimen- APPENDIX B: CHAPMAN-ENSKOG ANALYSIS

sionless quantity called the packing fraction 共for the hard- OF THE LATTICE BOLTZMANN EQUATION
sphere system兲, and g is a function of b ␳ . By introducing the expansions 关36,51兴
It should be noted that the collision term J in the Enskog
⬁
equation does not conserve mass, momentum, and energy ⑀n
locally, because it involves nonlocal interactions 关17兴. How- f ␣ 共 x⫹e␣ ␦ t ,t⫹ ␦ t 兲 ⫽ 兺 D nt f ␣共 x,t 兲 ,
n⫽0 n!
共B1a兲
ever, mass, momentum, and energy are conserved globally.
The nonlocal interaction is expected to produce nonideal gas ⬁
effects due to the exclusive volume in momentum and en-
ergy equations in hydrodynamics. The first term J (0) in the
f ␣⫽ 兺
n⫽0
⑀ n f ␣(n) , 共B1b兲
expansion of J is the usual collision term in the original
⬁
Boltzmann equation for dilute gases 共multiplied by a factor
g), and it conserves mass, momentum, and energy locally. ⳵ t⫽ 兺
n⫽0
⑀ n⳵ tn, 共B1c兲
Other higher order terms, J (n) for n⭓1, do not conserve
mass, momentum, and energy locally; they are responsible where ⑀ ⫽ ␦ t and Dt ⬅( ⳵ t ⫹e␣ •“), we can rewrite the lattice
for the flux 共of mass, momentum, and energy兲 transfer due to Boltzmann equation with a forcing term
nonlocal interactions.
To the first order approximation in the Chapman-Enskog f ␣ 共 x⫹e␣ ␦ t ,t⫹ ␦ t 兲 ⫺ f ␣ 共 x,t 兲
analysis, only J (0) , J (1) , and J (2) shall be retained in the
g
modified Boltzmann equation for the dense gases. Higher ⫽⫺ 关 f ␣ 共 x,t 兲 ⫺ f ␣(eq) 共 x,t 兲兴 ⫹J ␣⬘ ␦ t ⫺F ␣ ␦ t
order collision terms, J (n) , n⭓3, are neglected because they ␶
are involved a higher order or higher power of gradients of 共B2兲
␳ , u, and ␪ . The term J (2) can be simplify for incompressible
and isothermal fluids. In that case, the last two terms in Eq. in the consecutive order of the parameter ⑀ as
共A7b兲 vanish. Then the term of ⳵ i u j must be neglected owing
to the conservation constraints. The term of “ ␳ can be in- ⑀ 0: f ␣(0) ⫽ f ␣(eq) , 共B3a兲
cluded into J ⬘ by
␶
⑀ 1: f ␣(1) ⫽⫺ Dt 0 f ␣(0) , 共B3b兲
J ⬘ ⫽⫺ f (0)
b ␳ 共 ␰⫺u兲 • 关 “g⫹g“ ln ␳ 兴 2 g

⫽⫺ f (0) b ␳ g 共 ␰⫺u兲 •“ ln共 ␳ 2 g 兲 . 共A9兲 ␶ ␶

⑀ 2: f ␣(2) ⫽⫺ 关 D2 ⫹2 ⳵ t 1 兴 f ␣(0) ⫺ Dt 0 f ␣(1) , 共B3c兲
2g t 0 g
It is clear that J ⬘ conserves mass locally. However, it is
responsible for flux transfer due to the nonlocal interaction. where Dt n ⬅( ⳵ t n ⫹e␣ •“). Note that both F ␣ and J ␣⬘ in Eq.
The first order moment of J ⬘ , which is the mass flux, gives 共B2兲 do not appear in the above equations. However, they
the part of the equation of state attributed to nonideal gas will appear in the governing equations in what follows. The
effects: distribution function f ␣ is the normal solution which is con-
strained by
冕 d ␰␰J ⬘ ⫽⫺b ␳ g 冕 d ␰ f (0) ␰共 ␰⫺u兲 •“ ln共 ␳ 2 g 兲
兺␣ 冋册冋 册
f ␣(0)
1
⫽
␳
, 共B4a兲
e␣ ␳u
⫽⫺b ␪ ␳ 2 g“ ln共 ␳ 2 g 兲 ⫽⫺“ 共 ␪ b ␳ 2 g 兲 .

Combining with the ideal gas part of the equation of state,

共A10兲
兺␣ f ␣(n) 冋 册 冋册
1
e␣
⫽
0
0
, n⬎0, 共B4b兲

␳ ␪ , we obtain the total equation of state: where the equilibrium f ␣(0) 共for the nine-velocity model兲 is
given by
P⫽ ␳ ␪ 共 1⫹b ␳ g 兲 .

再 冎
共A11兲
共 e␣ •u兲 9 共 e␣ •u兲 2 3 u2
For hard sphere gases, the radius distribution function g is f ␣(eq) ⫽w ␣ ␳ 1⫹3 ⫹ ⫺ . 共B5兲
c2 2 c4 2 c2
known as up to (b ␳ ) 3 关17,24兴.
The energy transfer due to the effect of J ⬘ is The first order collision term J ␣⬘ , which is responsible for the
volume exclusion effect in dense gases, is given by
1
2
冕 1
d ␰␰2 J ⬘ ⫽⫺ b ␳ g
2
冕 d ␰ f (0) ␰2 共 ␰⫺u兲 •“ ln共 ␳ 2 g 兲 J ␣⬘ ⫽⫺ f ␣(eq) b ␳ g 共 e␣ ⫺u兲 •“ ln共 ␳ 2 g 兲 . 共B6兲

⫽⫺u•“ 共 ␪ b ␳ 2 g 兲 . 共A12兲 The forcing term F ␣ , for the nine-bit model, is given by

This correctly corresponds to the nonideal gas thermal equa-

tion of state, 关Eq. 共A11兲兴.
F ␣ ⫽⫺3 w ␣ ␳ 冋 1
c 2
共 e␣ ⫺u兲 ⫹3
共 e␣ •u兲
c4
册
e␣ •a, 共B7兲
4994 LI-SHI LUO PRE 62

which satisfies the following constraints: In the derivation of Eq. 共B13b兲, we have made the approxi-
mation that Dt 0 g⬇0, which is accurate up to O(u 2 ). The
moments of the first order governing equation, 关Eq. 共B13a兲兴,
兺␣ F ␣ ⫽0, 共B8a兲
lead to the Euler equations

⳵ t 0 ␳ ⫹“• 共 ␳ u兲 ⫽0, 共B14a兲

兺␣ e␣ F ␣ ⫽⫺ ␳ a, 共B8b兲

⳵ t 0 共 ␳ u兲 ⫹“•u (0) ⫽F⫺ ␪ b“ 共 ␳ 2 g 兲 , 共B14b兲

兺␣ e␣ ,i e␣ , j F ␣ ⫽⫺ ␳ 共 u i a j ⫹u j a i 兲 . 共B8c兲
where u (0) ⫽ 兺 ␣ e␣ e␣ f ␣(0) is the zeroth-order momentum flux
i j given by Eq. 共B10c兲, the above equations
tensor. With u (0)
Also, f ␣ is a Chapman-Enskog ansatz, f (x, ␰,t)
can be rewritten as
⫽ f (x, ␰; ␳ ,u, ␪ ), i.e., the temporal dependence of f ␣ is
through the hydrodynamic variables ␳ , u and ␪ . Therefore,
⳵ t 0 ␳ ⫹“• 共 ␳ u兲 ⫽0, 共B15a兲
⳵f␣ ⳵f␣
⳵ t f ␣⫽ ⳵ t␳ ⫹ ⳵u 共B9兲
⳵␳ ⳵u t 1
⳵ t 0 u⫹u•“u⫽⫺ “ P⫹a, 共B15b兲
␳
for isothermal fluids.
For the nine-velocity model, we have
where a⫽F/ ␳ is the acceleration, and

兺␣ f ␣(0) ⫽ ␳ , 共B10a兲 P⫽ ␳ ␪ 共 1⫹b ␳ g 兲 共B16兲

is the equation of state for a nonideal gas, depending on the

兺␣ e␣ f ␣(0) ⫽ ␳ u, 共B10b兲 radial distribution function g. 共Note that for the nine-velocity
isothermal model here, ␪ ⫽c 2 /3.兲
The moments of the second order governing equation,
兺␣ e␣ ,i e␣ , j f ␣(0) ⫽ ␪ ␳ ␦ i j ⫹ ␳ u i u j , 共B10c兲 关Eq. 共B13b兲兴, lead to the equations

⳵ t 1 ␳ ⫽0, 共B17a兲
兺␣ e␣ ,i e␣ , j e␣ ,k f ␣(0) ⫽ ␪ ␳ ⌬ i jkl u l 共B10d兲
共 2 ␶ ⫺g 兲
⳵ t 1 共 ␳ u兲 ⫹ “•u (1) ⫽0, 共B17b兲
and 2␶

where u (1) ⫽ 兺 ␣ e␣ e␣ f ␣(1) is the first-order momentum flux

兺␣ J ␣⬘ ⫽0, 共B11a兲
tensor. With the aid of Eqs. 共B10兲 and 共B15兲, we have

␶
兺␣ e␣ J ␣⬘ ⫽⫺ ␪ b“ 共 ␳ 2 g 兲 , 共B11b兲 u (1)
ij ⫽ 兺␣ e␣ ,i e␣ , j f ␣(1) ⫽⫺ g 兺␣ e␣ ,i e␣ , j Dt f ␣(0)
0

␶
兺␣ e␣ ,i e␣ , j J ␣⬘ ⫽b 关 u i u j u•“⫺ ␪ 共 u i ⳵ j ⫹u j ⳵ i 兲兴共 ␳ 2 g 兲 , i j ⫹ ␪ 共 “• ␳ u ␦ i j ⫹ ⳵ i ␳ u j ⫹ ⳵ j ␳ u i 兲兴
⫽⫺ 关 ⳵ t 0 u (0)
g
共B11c兲 ␶
⫽⫺ 关 ␪ 共 ⳵ t 0 ␳ ⫹“• ␳ u兲 ␦ i j ⫹ ⳵ t 0 共 ␳ u i u j 兲
where ␦ i j and ␦ i jkl are the Kronecker ␦ ’s with two and four g
indices, respectively, and ⫹ ␪ 共 ⳵ i ␳ u j ⫹ ⳵ j ␳ u i 兲兴
⌬ i jkl ⫽ ␦ i j ␦ kl ⫹ ␦ ik ␦ jl ⫹ ␦ il ␦ jk . 共B12兲 ␶
⫽⫺ 关 ␪ ␳ 共 ⳵ i u j ⫹ ⳵ j u i 兲 ⫹O 共 M 3 兲 ,
g
The governing equations of f ␣ up to the order of ⑀ are
where ⳵ i ⫽ ⳵ / ⳵ x i . In the above result for u (1)
i j , terms such as
g
Dt 0 f (0) ⫽⫺ f (1) ⫹J ␣⬘ ⫺F ␣ , 共B13a兲 u i ⳵ j ␳ have been neglected because “ ␳ is of the order
␶ O(M 2 ), and it is done in consistence with the small velocity
expansion of f ␣(eq) up to the order of O(u2 ). 关Note that
共 2 ␶ ⫺g 兲 g O(u)⫽O(M ); therefore, we take the liberty to interchange
⳵ t 1 f (0) ⫹ Dt 0 f (1) ⫽⫺ f (2) . 共B13b兲
2␶ ␶ these notations.兴 Similarly, we have
PRE 62 THEORY OF THE LATTICE BOLTZMANN METHOD: ... 4995

␶ APPENDIX C: EQUILIBRIUM DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

i j ⫽⫺ ␪ ␳⳵ j 共 ⳵ i u j ⫹ ⳵ j u i 兲 ⫹O 共 M 兲
⳵ j u (1) 3
SHIFTED BY ACCELERATION
g
If we start with the BGK Boltzmann equation without a
␶
⫽⫺ ␪ ␳ 共 ⳵ i “•u⫹“ 2 u i 兲 ⫹O 共 M 3 兲 forcing term,
g
1
␶ ⳵ t f ⫹ ␰•“ f ⫽⫺ 关 f ⫺ f (0) 兴 , 共C1兲
⫽⫺ ␪ ␳ “ 2 u i ⫹O 共 M 3 兲 , 共B18兲 ␶␦t
g
and assume that particle is impulsively accelerated by accel-
where the term “•u has been neglected because it is of eration a with the mean free time ␶ ␦ t . Under this circum-
O(M 2 ) due to Eq. 共B15a兲. stance, the equilibrium distribution function becomes 关35兴
Combining the first and the second order results 关Eqs.
共B14兲 and 共B17兲兴 together by ⳵ t ⫽ ⳵ t 0 ⫹ ⑀ ⳵ t 1 and recalling that f (0) 共 ␳ ,u⫺a␶ ␦ t , ␪ 兲 ⫽ ␳ 共 2 ␲ ␪ 兲 ⫺D/2exp关 ⫺ 共 ␰⫺u⫹a␶ ␦ t 兲 2 /2 ␪ 兴 .
共C2兲
⑀ ⫽ ␦ t , we have the Navier-Stokes equations 关accurate up to
the order of O(M 2 ) in the momentum equation兴 Accordingly,

⳵ t ␳ ⫹“• 共 ␳ u兲 ⫽0, 共B19a兲 f (eq) ⫽ ␳ 共 2 ␲ ␪ 兲 ⫺D/2exp共 ⫺ ␰2 /2␪ 兲

1
⳵ t u ⫹u•“u⫽⫺ “ P⫹ ␯ “ 2 u⫹a,
␳
共B19b兲 ⫻ 1⫹再 ␰• 共 u⫺a␶ ␦ t 兲 关 ␰• 共 u⫺a␶ ␦ t 兲兴 2
␪
⫹
2␪2

where the viscosity is given by

⫺
共 u⫺a␶ ␦ t 兲 2
冎
冉 冊
2␪
␶ 1 共 2 ␶ ⫺g 兲 ␦ x
2

再
␯ ⫽ ⫺ ␪ ␦ t⫽ ,
g 2 6g ␦t ␰•u 共 ␰•u兲 2 u2
⬇ ␳␻ 共 ␰兲 1⫹ ⫹ ⫺
and the pressure 共the equation of state兲 is given by ␪ 2␪2 2␪

P⫽ ␳ ␪ 共 1⫹b ␳ g 兲 ⫽ 31 c 2 ␳ 共 1⫹b ␳ g 兲 ,

where ␪ ⫽c 2 /3 has been substituted. With the above equa-

共B20兲
⫺ 冋 1
␪
共 ␰⫺u兲 ⫹
1 共 ␰•u兲
␪2
␰ •a␶ ␦ t . 册 冎 共C3兲

tion of state, the sound speed, c s , is given by Here we have consistently ignored the terms of the order

冋 册
O( ␦ 2t ) or higher order. Substituting ␪ ⫽c 2 /3, where c
d
c s2 ⫽ ␪ 1⫹ 共 b ␳ 2g 兲 ⬅ ␦ x / ␦ t , we have
d␳
1
⫽ c 2 1⫹
3 冋d
d␳
共 b ␳ 2g 兲 . 册 共B21兲
f ␣(eq) ⫽w ␣ ␳ 1⫹冋 3 共 e␣ •u兲
c2
⫹
9 共 e␣ •u兲 2
2c 4
⫺
3u2
2c 2
册
It should be pointed out that, if instead of Eq. 共B8c兲, the
constraint
⫺3 w ␣ ␳ ␶ ␦ t 冋 1
c 2
共 e␣ ⫺u兲 ⫹
3 共 e␣ •u兲
c4
册
,e␣ •a. 共C4兲

The second part of f ␣(eq) exactly produces the forcing term F ␣

兺␣ e␣ ,i e␣ , j F ␣ ⫽0 共B22兲
obtained previously when f ␣(eq) is substituted into the follow-
ing lattice Boltzmann equation without a forcing term:
is then imposed, the term ␳ a•u, which is the work done by
the force, does not appear in the energy balance equation. 1
f ␣ 共 x⫹e␣ ␦ t ,t⫹ ␦ t 兲 ⫺ f ␣ 共 x,t 兲 ⫽⫺ 关 f ␣ 共 x,t 兲 ⫺ f ␣(eq) 共 x,t 兲兴 .
Therefore, the constraint of Eq. 共B8c兲 must be imposed to ␶
assure a correct energy balance equation. 共C5兲

关1兴 G. McNamara and G. Zanetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2332
共1988兲.
关2兴 F.J. Higuera, S. Succi, and R. Benzi, Europhys. Lett. 9, 345
共1989兲; F.J. Higuera and J. Jeménez, ibid. 9, 663 共1989兲.
关3兴 H. Chen, S. Chen, and W.H. Matthaeus, Phys. Rev. A 45,
R5339 共1991兲; Y.H. Qian, D. d’Humières, and P. Lallemand,
Europhys. Lett. 17, 479 共1992兲.
关4兴 Lattice Gas Methods for Partial Differential Equations, edited
by G.D. Doolen 共Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA, 1990兲;
Lattice Gas Methods: Theory, Applications, and Hardware,
edited by G.D. Doolen 共MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991兲.
关5兴 R. Benzi, S. Succi, and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rep. 222, 145
共1992兲.
关6兴 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Discrete
Models for Fluid Mechanics, 1994, Princeton, edited by J.L.
Lebowitz, S.A. Orszag, and Y.H. Qian 关J. Stat. Phys. 81, 1
共1995兲兴.
关7兴 A.K. Gunstensen, D.H. Rothman, S. Zaleski, and G. Zanetti,
Phys. Rev. A 43, 4320 共1991兲; A. K. Gunstensen, Ph.D. thesis,
M.I.T., 1992; A.K. Gunstensen and D.H. Rothman, Europhys.
4996 LI-SHI LUO
Lett. 18, 157 共1992兲; J. Geophys. Res. 98, 6431 共1993兲.
关8兴 X. Shan and H. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 47, 1815 共1993兲; 49, 2941
共1994兲.
关9兴 M.R. Swift, W.R. Osborn, and J.M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. Lett.
75, 830 共1995兲; M.R. Swift, E. Orlandini, W.R. Osborn, and
J.M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. E 54, 5041 共1996兲.
关10兴 W.R. Osborn, E. Orlandini, M.R. Swift, J.M. Yeomans, and
J.R. Banavar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4031 共1995兲. E. Orlandini,
M.R. Swift, and J.M. Yeomans, Europhys. Lett. 32, 463
共1995兲.
关11兴 X. He, X. Shan, and G.D. Doolen, Phys. Rev. E 57, R13
共1998兲.
关12兴 N.S. Martys and H. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 53, 743 共1996兲.
关13兴 U. Frisch, B. Hasslacher, and Y. Pomeau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56,
1505 共1986兲; S. Wolfram, J. Stat. Phys. 45, 471 共1986兲; U.
Frisch, D. d’Humières, B. Hasslacher, P. Lallemand, Y.
Pomeau, and J.-P. Rivet, Complex Syst. 1, 649 共1987兲.
关14兴 K. Prendergast and K. Xu, J. Comput. Phys. 109, 53 共1993兲; K.
Xu and K. Prendergast, ibid. 114, 9 共1994兲.
关15兴 A.D. Kotelnikov and D.C. Montgomery, J. Comput. Phys. 134,
364 共1997兲.
关16兴 D. d’Humières 共private communication兲.
关17兴 S. Chapman and T.G. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of
Non-Uniform Gases, 3rd ed. 共Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1970兲.
关18兴 J.-P. Hansen and I.R. McDonald, Theory of Simple Liquids,
2nd ed. 共Academic, New York, 1986兲.
关19兴 M. Rigby, E.B. Smith, W.A. Wakeham, and G.C. Maitland,
The Forces Between Molecules 共Oxford University Press, Ox-
ford, 1986兲.
关20兴 J.W. Dufty, A. Santos, and J.J. Brey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1270
共1996兲; A. Santos, J.M. Montanero, J.W. Dufty, and J.J. Brey,
Phys. Rev. E 57, 1644 共1998兲.
关21兴 X. He and L.-S. Luo, Phys. Rev. E 55, R6333 共1997兲; 56, 6811
共1997兲.
关22兴 L.-S. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1618 共1998兲.
关23兴 P.L. Bhatnagar, E.P. Gross, and M. Krook, Phys. Rev. 94, 511
共1954兲.
关24兴 J.O. Hirschfelder, C.F. Curtiss, and R.B. Bird, Molecular
Theory of Gases and Liquids 共Wiley, New York, 1954兲.
关25兴 S. Harris, An Introduction to the Theory of the Boltzmann
Equation 共Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1971兲.
PRE 62
关26兴 W.G. Vincenti and C.H. Kruger, Jr., Introduction to Physical
Gas Dynamics 共Krieger, New York, 1975兲.
关27兴 R.L. Liboff, Kinetic Theory 共Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1990兲.
关28兴 J.A. McLennan, Introduction to Non-Equilibrium Statistical
Mechanics 共Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989兲.
关29兴 P. Résibois, J. Stat. Phys. 19, 593 共1978兲.
关30兴 M. Mareschal, Phys. Rev. A 27, 1727 共1983兲; 29, 926 共1984兲.
关31兴 J. Piasecki, J. Stat. Phys. 48, 1203 共1987兲.
关32兴 Yu.L. Klimontovich, Kinetic Theory of Nonideal Gases and
Nonideal Plasmas 共Pergamon, Oxford, 1982兲.
关33兴 M.N. Kogan, Rarefied Gas Dynamics 共Plenum, NY, 1969兲.
关34兴 P.J. Davis and P. Rabinowitz, Methods of Numerical Integra-
tion, 2nd ed. 共Academic, New York, 1984兲.
关35兴 L.C. Woods, An Introduction to the Kinetic Theory of Gases
and Magnetoplasmas 共Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1993兲.
关36兴 L.-S. Luo, Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1993.
关37兴 L.-S. Luo, J. Stat. Phys. 88, 913 共1997兲.
关38兴 K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics 共Wiley, New York, 1963兲.
关39兴 S. Chapman, in Fundamental Formulas of Physics, edited by
D.H. Menzel 共Dover, New York, 1960兲, Vol. I.
关40兴 J.W. Cahn and J.E. Hilliard, J. Chem. Phys. 28, 258 共1958兲.
关41兴 R. Evans, Adv. Phys. 28, 143 共1979兲.
关42兴 D.J. Holdych, D. Rovas, J.G. Georgiadis, and R.O. Buckius,
Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 9, 1393 共1998兲.
关43兴 A. Wagner and J. Yeomans, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 8, 773
共1997兲.
关44兴 D. Jasnow and J. Viñals, Phys. Fluids 8, 660 共1995兲.
关45兴 B.T. Nadiga and S. Zaleski, Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 15, 885
共1996兲.
关46兴 D. Jacqmin, J. Comput. Phys. 155, 96 共1999兲.
关47兴 Y.-H. Qian and Y.-F. Deng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2742 共1997兲.
关48兴 D. d’Humières, in Rarefied Gas Dynamics: Theory and Simu-
lations, edited by D. Shizgal and D.P. Weaver, Progress in
Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 159 共AIAA, Washington,
DC, 1992兲, pp. 450–458; L. Giraud, D. d’Humières, and P.
Lallemand, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 8, 805 共1997兲; Europhys. Lett.
42, 625 共1998兲.
关49兴 P. Lallemand and L.-S. Luo, Phys. Rev. E 61, 6546 共2000兲.
关50兴 K. Xu and L.-S. Luo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 9, 1177 共1998兲.
关51兴 X. He and L.-S. Luo, J. Stat. Phys. 88, 927 共1997兲.