Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-022-03679-5

TECHNICAL PAPER

An improved immersed boundary method by coupling

of the multi‑direct forcing and Fourier pseudo‑spectral methods
Felipe Pamplona Mariano1 · Leonardo de Queiroz Moreira1 · Andreia Aoyagui Nascimento1 ·
Aristeu Silveira‑Neto2

Received: 6 January 2022 / Accepted: 10 July 2022 / Published online: 8 August 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
The present paper aims to report an improve on the development of the IMERSPEC methodology, which is a methodol-
ogy that couples the Fourier pseudo-spectral and immersed boundary methods, which can now solve flows over complex
geometries. In the present work, the Lagrangian mesh that represents the immersed body inside the flow does not have to
coincide with the Eulerian mesh. Furthermore, a high accuracy for the resultant methodology is achieved. These two impor-
tant improvements arise from the development of the multi-direct forcing method and used to calculate the force field of the
immersed boundary method. In order to verify the IMERSPEC methodology, a manufactured solution technique was used.
The results of a refined mesh were employed, and different distribution and interpolation functions were used and analysed.
Finally, flows over a backward-facing step geometry were simulated in two dimensions. This type of flow presents several
physical features, for example, detachment and reattachment of the boundary layer and vortex generation, which are difficult
to capture using numerical solutions. A comparison with the experimental data is presented and shows that the IMERSPEC
methodology is promising for computational fluid dynamics applications and its analysis.

Keywords Computational fluid dynamics · Immersed boundary method · Fourier pseudo-spectral method · Backward-
facing step flow

Technical Editor: Daniel Onofre de Almeida Cruz.
Leonardo de Queiroz Moreira, Andreia Aoyagui Nascimento and
Aristeu Silveira-Neto have contributed equally to this work.
* Felipe Pamplona Mariano
fpmariano@ufg.br
Leonardo de Queiroz Moreira
lqmoreira@ufg.br
Andreia Aoyagui Nascimento
aanascimento@ufg.br
Aristeu Silveira‑Neto
aristeus@ufu.br
1
Laboratório de Engenharia Térmica e de Fluidos (LATEF),
Escola de Engenharia Elétrica, Mecânica e de Computação
(EMC), Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), Av.
Esperança, Al. Ingá, Prédio: B5, Campus Samambaia,
Goiânia, GO 74690‑900, Brazil
2
Laboratório de Mecânica dos Fluidos (MFLab), Faculdade
de Engenharia Mecânica (FEMEC), Universidade Federal de
Uberlândia (UFU), Av.: João Naves d’ Ávilla, 2121, Bl.: 5P,
Campus Santa Mônica, Uberlândia, MG 38408‑100, Brazil
1 Introduction
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methodologies have
became quite common and reliable for both engineering
and scientific problems in academic and industrial envi-
ronments. The developments achieved until this point have
enabled the increase in their potential, as well as the level
of confidence that the scientific community places in them.
Large CFD applications have been conducted by several
industrial sectors, such as petroleum, chemical and aero-
nautical industries. The common macrofeatures for indus-
trial applications are physical and geometrical complex-
ity, flexible and moving geometries, turbulent flows and
multiple characteristic scales. In order to solve such prob-
lems, special methodologies have been used (i.e. adaptive
meshes over complex geometries) to achieve high accuracy
and a high rate of convergence. On the other hand, the
computational cost increases for more accurate method-
ologies, both in CPU time and in storage memory. For
example, in studies of aeroacoustics, combustion and sur-
factant transport, a low concentration is normally sufficient

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
388 Page 2 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388
to model large physical effects. Thus, high-accuracy solu-
tions for PDEs are necessary.
The current perception of researchers in the field of
mathematical modelling is that the solution of differential
models should have the following features: high accuracy,
high convergence rates, low computational cost (memory
storage and CPU time), ease in handling complex, mov-
ing and deformable geometries, ease in programming and
parallelising and good scalability. The techniques used to
solve flow problems over complex and moving geometries
require moving and deforming meshes or even remaking
the mesh after a given number of time steps. These pro-
cedures cause the methodologies to have a high computa-
tional cost and have a more complex implementation [1].
The immersed boundary methodology has been devel-
oped since 1970 by several researchers [2–6]. This method
fulfils a portion of the requirements described above; spe-
cifically, it can handle complex and moving geometries.
This methodology, in contrast to unstructured grids, allows
flows to be simulated over complex geometries using only
a single Cartesian mesh. On the other hand, finite volume,
finite element and finite difference methodologies involve
large computational costs to reach high-accuracy solutions
[1]. Furthermore, using spectral methods like collocation,
Galerkin, Tau, etc., high-accuracy solutions are achieved,
see the works of [7–10].
Computer simulations with high accuracy can be
performed by solving fluid flow equations with numeri-
cal methods of high order of convergence [9, 11], e.g. a
CFD problem is solved in a given mesh with a high-order
convergence method (greater than two), and results are
obtained with high accuracy, that is, with insignificant
errors. At the same time, using a method of convergence
order, less than two, requires a much finer mesh to achieve
the same level of accuracy in the results of the same prob-
lem. Sometimes, this level of refinement makes it impos-
sible to carry out a simulation, as it requires a greater
amount of RAM and processing time.
Among the high-order numerical convergence methods,
the spectral methods stand out, as they are characterised
by an exponential convergence rate in relation to the mesh
refinement, [7, 10, 12–14]. Specifically, the collocation Fou-
rier pseudo-spectral method is especially used in the solu-
tion of the Navier–Stokes equations, because it eliminates
the pressure gradient solution for incompressible flows,
by guaranteeing the conservation of mass through of the
projection procedure of the nonlinear term. In mathemati-
cal and computational terms, the linear system solution (to
13
solve the Poisson equation) is replaced by a matrix vector
product, this is a numerical procedure faster to performed
computationally and that demands less RAM memory con-
sumption. In any case, the pressure field can be obtained in
post-processing.
The main computational cost (processing time and RAM
memory usage) when using the pseudo-spectral Fourier
method is in the process of transforming the velocity fields
into spectral space or Fourier space. For that, the algorithm
called fast Fourier transform is used [15, 16], which is still,
sometimes, more efficient than the solution of linear sys-
tems, mainly, when comparing simulations with more mesh
refinement. However, the pseudo-spectral Fourier colloca-
tion method requires periodic boundary conditions [17],
which limits its use in computational fluid dynamics to few
useful problems, [13, 18].
The merging of immersed boundary and Fourier pseudo-
spectral methodologies gives rise to a new methodology,
named IMERSPEC, which was presented in [19]. The idea
behind this method is that it combines the advantages of each
technique and resolves some of their drawbacks. The base
of this proposal and preliminary applications were given in
[19], where the Taylor–Green vortex decay, lid-driven cav-
ity flows and flows over square cylinders were solved using
the IMERSPEC methodology. In [19], it was demonstrated
that it is possible to solve non-periodic problems using Fou-
rier spectral methodology, but the methodology is limited to
simulate, only, flow over Cartesian geometries and presented
low convergence rates—first order.
The listed works that have the purpose of evaluating
some specific numerical and/or computational aspect in
IMERSPEC methodology [20] are compared the analysis
of convergence orders and computational times between
the pseudo-spectral Fourier method and the finite volume
method. In [21, 22] is presented the development of the
insertion of three different boundary conditions, using the
immersed boundary method, particularly to thermal flow
problems. In [23], the Lagrangian force is calculated by a
function of the surface tension by the contact of two immis-
cible fluids, the immersed boundary is not rigid, and a dif-
ferent algorithm is developed. In the present work, the main
goal is to show that the IMERSPEC methodology can be
extended to more complex problems and achieve high-order
numerical convergence. The results reach fourth order of
spatial convergence and it is possible to establish that the
convergence order can be modified by changing the dis-
tribution and interpolation functions from the immersed
boundary method. Finally, applications to very complex
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388 Page 3 of 23 388

flows over a backward-facing step are performed, and the considering the simplifying assumptions used. In the present
two-dimensional and three-dimensional results agree with work, the Fourier pseudo-spectral method is used, and the
experimental results. mathematical modelling is presented in Fourier space.

2.2 Mathematic modelling for fluid flow in Fourier

2 Mathematical modelling space

In the present section, details of the merging of the immersed Defining the direct Fourier transforms, Eq. 3, and inverse Fou-
boundary [24], Fourier pseudo-spectral [8, 13] and methodolo- rier transforms, Eq. 4, like [17, 19]:
gies are presented. This coupling gives rise to the IMERSPEC ( )2 ∞

∫−∞
methodology. The mathematical formulation is presented in ̂ t) = 1
𝜙(𝐤, 𝜙(𝐱, t)e−𝜄𝐤.𝐱 d𝐱, (3)
the following subsections: mathematical modelling for the 2𝜋
fluid flow, Navier–Stokes and continuity equations, both in
physical space and in Fourier space, and interface equations, ( )2 ∞

∫−∞
1 ̂ t)e𝜄𝐤.𝐱 d𝐤.
given by the immersed boundary and multi-direct forcing
𝜙(𝐱, t) = 𝜙(𝐤, (4)
2𝜋
methods [25]. Finally, the coupling between the methodolo-
gies is presented. ̂ t) are the Fourier coeficients of transformed func-
where 𝜙(𝐤,
tion 𝜙(𝐱, t), that can be the pressure or vector velocity, 𝐤 is
2.1 Mathematical modelling for a fluid flow the wave number vector,
√ a parameter of the spatial Fourier
in physical space transform and 𝜄 = −1.
We make use of the definition of the forward Fourier
In the present paper, mathematical models are presented for transform (Eq. 3) in Eq. 1; it gives:
incompressible flows of Newtonian fluids without heat transfer
𝜄kj ûj = 0. (5)
and with constant physical properties. The formulation con-
sists of the continuity equation, which arises from a balance where ̂u(𝐤, t) are the coefficients of the direct Fourier trans-
of mass, and by the Navier–Stokes equations, which model form of velocity vector.
the linear momentum balance (Newton’s second law). These Equation 5 shows that velocity field for incompressible
equations are presented using tensorial notation: flows in Fourier space is orthogonal to the wave number
𝜕uj vector. Application of the Fourier transform to Eq. 2 gives:
= 0, (1) ( )
𝜕xj 𝜕 𝜄k ̂
p(𝐤, t)
+ 𝜈k2 ûi (𝐤, t) = − i
𝜕t 𝜌
̂ (6)
𝜕ui 𝜕(ui uj ) 1 𝜕p 𝜕 2 ui f
∫𝐤=𝐫+𝐬
1
+ =− +𝜈 + f. (2) + 𝜄kj uj (𝐤 − 𝐫, t)d𝐫 + i (𝐤, t),
ûi (𝐫, t)̂
𝜕t 𝜕xj 𝜌 𝜕xi 𝜕xj 𝜕xj 𝜌 i 𝜌

In Eqs. 1 and 2, ui (𝐱, t) and p(𝐱, t) are the components of
the velocity vector in [m/s] and the pressure field in [N/m2 ],
respectively. The fluid properties are the density 𝜌 in [kg/m3 ]
and the kinematic viscosity coefficient 𝜈 in [m2 ∕s]. The
fi (𝐱, t) term represents the components of any source term
in [N/m3 ]. In the present work, fi (𝐱, t) is the force field of the
fluid–solid interaction, the fluid–fluid interaction or another
force field that models other physical effects internal to the
fluid flow domain [3, 4].
Equations 1 and 2, together with the boundary and ini-
tial conditions, can model any fluid flow in physical space,
where 𝐤, 𝐫 and 𝐬 are the wave number vectors and k = ‖𝐤‖ is
the norm of the wave number vector.
The term associated with the Fourier transform of the
𝜄k ̂
p(𝐤,t)
pressure field, i 𝜌 , is normal to velocity vector. The sum
that composes the right-hand side of Eq. 6 is equal to the
projection over plane divergent-free, of the sum of the non-
̂f (𝐤,t)
linear term (convolution integral) with the source term i 𝜌 .
Therefore, the transformed Navier–Stokes equations in
Fourier space can be rewritten as:

13
388 Page 4 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388

( ) arithmetic mean of the nonlinear term, written in conserva-

𝜕
+ 𝜈k2 ûi (𝐤, t)
𝜕t tive form and in non-conservative form.
[ ]
̂
fm (7)
∫𝐤=𝐫+𝐬 m
= Pim 𝜄kj û (𝐫, t)̂
uj (𝐤 − 𝐫, t)d𝐫 + (𝐤, t) . 2.4 DFT and FFT
𝜌

In Eq. 7 the projection tensor Pim is defined as [26]: Taking a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) is the proper
numerical way to evaluate the forward and backward Fou-
ki km rier transform. However, it is restricted to periodic boundary
Pim = 𝛿im − , (8)
k2 condition problems, thereby limiting the use of numerical
Fourier transforms for CFD problems. The Fourier spectral
were 𝛿im is the Kronecker delta tensor. We note that the Pim
method has only been used for simulations of temporal jets,
tensor projects any vector over plane 𝜋.
temporal mixing layers and homogeneous and isotropic tur-
It is noteworthy that, in Eq. 7, the pressure gradient no
bulence [7, 18].
longer appears. This finding means that the velocity field, for
The fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm proposed by
incompressible flows, can be obtained without the pressure
[15] can be used to efficiently solve DFT equation. In terms
term. This property is one of the most interesting features of
of float point operations, the FFT gives O(N log2 N), whereas
the Fourier spectral methodology. Therefore, with the pro-
the DFT is on the order of O(N 2 ) float point operations where
posed methodology, it is possible for complex problems to
N is the number of collocation points. In the present paper,
be solved without treating the pressure–velocity coupling
we use the FFTE subroutine implemented in [27].
and without solving linear systems.
Nevertheless, because the velocity field is solved, the
2.5 Immersed boundary methodology—IBM
pressure field can be determined, either as a direct result or
as a post-processing result. The convolution integral, cor-
The IBM methodology uses two calculation domains, the
responding to the Fourier transform of a nonlinear term,
Eulerian and Lagrangian domains. The fluid flow equations
which appears in Eq. 7, cannot be solved numerically. Thus,
(Eq. 7) are solved in the Eulerian domain, and the force
as an alternative, the pseudo-spectral method is described in
field is evaluated in the Lagrangian domain to represent the
the next section.
immersed interface of the flow [3]. These two domains com-
municate with each other through a source term added in the
2.3 Fourier pseudo‑spectral method Navier–Stokes equations.
This source term is defined throughout the whole Eule-
The Fourier pseudo-spectral method [7] involves the product
rian domain with an understanding of its distribution over
of two functions in physical space and transforms this prod-
the Lagrangean domain, as given by:
uct rather than transforming the two functions independently
{
and solves the convolution integral in Fourier space.
if 𝐱 ≠ 𝐱k
Fi (𝐱k , t) if 𝐱 = 𝐱k
The advantage of this procedure is that we do not have
fi (𝐱, t) =
0
, (9)
to solve the convolution integral, although this reduces the
accuracy of the Fourier spectral method. However, high
accuracy can be maintained by performing the derivatives in
spectral space and subsequently solving the product in physi-
cal space. The drawback of the pseudo-spectral method is
that one must solve the direct and inverse Fourier transform
for each time step, which increases the computational cost.
Another important detail regarding the presented for-
mulation is the way that the nonlinear term is treated. The
skew-symmetric form proposed by [7] is considered to be
more stable and is used in the present paper. It consists of an

Fig. 1  Schematic representation of the Eulerian and Lagrangian

domains

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388 Page 5 of 23 388

where Fi (𝐱k , t) is modelled according to that presented in the mass balance), and rhsi is determined by summing the
[19]. The vectors 𝐱 and 𝐱k are shown in Fig. 1. nonlinear, diffusive and pressure gradient terms. By decom-
The IBM used in the present paper was developed posing Eq. 10 into two equations, the following EDP system
based on the work of [4], in which a balance of momen- is obtained:
tum is applied over an immersed interface (virtual physical
model—VPM) by generating a reaction force that represents u∗i − uti
= rhsti , (11)
the boundary conditions of the immersed body. The IBM is Δt
also based on the work of [25], which reports an updated
version of the VPM of [4]. This modification changes the ut+Δt − u∗i
manner in which the interface force is calculated through fi = i
. (12)
Δt
an iterative process, through multi-direct forcing (MDF),
in order to improve the accuracy of the Lagrangian force Equations 11 and 12 are valid for any fluid particle, includ-
calculus, Fi (𝐱k , t). ing that positioned over the immersed boundaries. Next,
The domains used in the present work are presented Eq. 12 can be rewritten as:
in Fig. 1. The physical domain ΩPhD , termed the Eulerian
Uit+Δt − Ui∗
domain, is bounded by the immersed boundary ΓPhD, which Fi = , (13)
is considered as a Lagrangian domain. All physical phenom- Δt
ena that we are interested in modelling and simulating occur where Fi is the Lagrangian force and Uit+Δt is the interface
within ΩPhD. In ΩPhD, one or more bodies can be immersed, velocity, which is determined by the physical conditions
as represented by the frontiers Γi, where i = 1, 2, … , N . Over related to the problem under study (“boundary conditions”).
the immersed frontier ΓPhD, any boundary conditions can be The velocity is zero for interfaces at rest, and it is nonzero
modelled even if they are not periodic, in the present article for moving interfaces. The velocity for moving interfaces
only Dirichlet boundary conditions are studied. Kinoshita can be found by imposing a velocity for a rigid body, or it
et al. [21, 22] show that thermal boundary conditions are may not be known, e.g. in the case of fluid–structure interac-
assessed, [23] boundary conditions to two-phase flows are tion problems. In this case, the body velocity must be deter-
tested, and [18, 28] turbulent wall models are presented. mined by the structural model.
The additional Eulerian domain ΩPeD is bounded by the The Lagrangian velocity Ui∗ (predicted) is obtained by
frontier ΓPeD over which periodic boundary conditions are interpolating the predicted Eulerian velocity, u∗i , obtained
imposed. The domain ΩPeD complements ΩPhD and makes using Eq. 11.
it possible to extend the solution for non-periodic bound- On the other hand, the Eulerian force fi that appears
ary condition problems. Periodic boundary conditions are in Eq. 12 is obtained from the distribution of Fi , which is
imposed directly over ΓPeD. On the other hand, non-periodic calculated using Eq. 13. Hence, the Eulerian velocity ut+Δt
boundary conditions are imposed over the immersed bound-
i
can be updated using Eq. 14, which is given by Eq. 12:
ary ΓPhD in an indirect way, through the Eulerian force field
fi (𝐱, t) given by Eq. 9. ut+Δt
i
= u∗i + Δtfi . (14)
In Fig. 1, the vector 𝐱 defines any point that belongs to
the Eulerian domain, while the vector 𝐱𝐤 defines any point In order to improve the accuracy of the solution of the
that belongs to the Lagrangian interface. immersed interface velocity, the above procedure, i.e. the
( )
To evaluate the Lagrangian force Fi 𝐱k , t , we use the calculation of fi and ut+Δt i
, can be performed in an itera-
Euler scheme for temporal discretisation. From Eq. 7 we tive way. According to [25], the velocity field ut+Δt i
becomes
obtain: ut+Δt,it+1
i
where it is one of the interactions of the multi-direct
forcing method.
ut+Δt − uti + (u∗i − u∗i ) f Next, ut+Δt,it+1 is interpolated again, providing Uiit+1, and
i
= rhsti + i , (10) i
Δt 𝜌 the Lagrangian force, Fiit+1, is recalculated and redistributed.
Equation 14 is solved again, giving:
where t + Δt indicates the current time, t indicates the pre-
ceding time, u∗i represents the i component of the predicted ut+Δt,it+1
i
= u∗,it
i
+ Δtfiit . (15)
velocity, ut+Δt
i
and uti are the solenoidal velocity (satisfying

13
388 Page 6 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388

This iterative process continues until a stopping criterion, 𝜀, ⎧ 3−2∣r∣+√1+4∣r∣−4∣r∣2

is satisfied. In the present paper, we adopted the force differ- ⎪ 8
if 0 <∣ r ∣≤ 1
ence between two consecutive interactions: ⎪
⎪ √
Wg (r) =⎨ 5−2∣r∣− −7+12∣r∣−4∣r∣2 if 1 <∣ r ∣≤ 2 , (22)
∣ Fiit+1 − Fiit ∣≤ 𝜀. (16) ⎪ 8
⎪
We note that, in each interaction, the velocity ut+Δt,it+1 from ⎪0 if 2 <∣ r ∣
i ⎩
Eq. 15 and the force fiit+1 are projected over plane 𝜋 , assur-
ing mass and momentum balance. Furthermore, the force where rx = h k and ry = h k , with h being the spacing
x−x y−y

difference (Eq. 16) converges to zero, because the velocity
at boundaries become more close to the boundary condi-
tions. In Sect. 3.2.3, the results of this iterative process are
presented and discussed.
2.6 Distribution and interpolation functions
It is noted that the force distribution and interpolation veloc-
ity processes, as described above, are given using the Dirac
nucleus when the Lagrangian and Eulerian meshes are not
coincident. In the present paper, fluid flows over Cartesian
geometries are modelled. A wide range of problems in which
the two meshes (Eulerian and Lagrangian) are coincident can
be covered. In this case, the interpolation and distribution pro-
cesses are replaced by the definitions given by Eqs. 17 and 18:
{ tion proposed by [24], i.e. Eq. 22, other functions proposed
if 𝐱 ≠ 𝐱k
ui (𝐱, t) if 𝐱 = 𝐱k
Ui (𝐱𝐤 , t) = , (17)
0
{ cubic function, Wc , was proposed by [29]; a six-point func-
if 𝐱 ≠ 𝐱k
Fi (𝐱, t) if 𝐱 = 𝐱k
fi (𝐱, t) = . (18)
0 proposed in the work of [24]; and a hat function, Wh , was
However, when the problem has a non-Cartesian geometry,
distribution and interpolation functions must be used. For
this purpose, velocity interpolation and force distribution
functions are defined. The following were proposed by [24]:
( ) ∑ ( ) ( )
Ui 𝐱k = Dh 𝐱 − 𝐱k ui 𝐱k Δx2 , (19)
Ω
between the collocation nodes of the Eulerian discretised
domain, and Δs is the spacing between the nodes of dicreti-
sation of the Lagrangian domain.
The Wg function is similar in form to a Gaussian and sat-
isfies the property of having a unit integral over [−∞, +∞].
The Eulerian force field, fi (𝐱, t) , is null throughout the
whole domain except in the neighborhood of the Lagran-
gian points where it virtually models an immersed interface,
simulating the presence of a body. Thus, it is not necessary
to make changes and adaptations to the Eulerian mesh in
order to fit the mesh
( to )the interface [4]. Once the Lagran-
gian force field, Fi 𝐱k , t , is calculated, it can be distributed
and thus can transmit information about the geometry to the
Eulerian mesh.
In the present work, in addition to the distribution func-
by different authors were also used. The main difference
between the functions lies in the weight function, W(r). A
tion, W6p, was proposed by [30]; a cosine function, Wcos, was
presented in [31].
Not all of these weight functions exhibit the mathemati-
cal properties that a distribution function must have. Nev-
ertheless, in [32], it was shown that these functions give
notably good results. The weight function, W(r), is funda-
mental to the accuracy and numerical convergence rates of
the immersed boundary methodology.

∑ ( ) ( )
fi (𝐱) = Dh 𝐱 − 𝐱k Fi 𝐱k Δs2 , (20) 2.7 Merging the pseudo‑spectral and immersed
Γ
boundary methods
( ) 1 ( ) ( )
Dh 𝐱k − 𝐱 = 2 Wg rx Wg ry , (21) The originality of the present work lies in one key idea:
h it uses the Fourier pseudo-spectral method to simulate

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388 Page 7 of 23 388

[ ( ) ( )−1 ]
non-periodic problems. This property is achieved by the Δx Δy 2 1 1
IMERSPEC methodology proposed in [19], which allows Δt = CFL ⋅ min min ; ; +
max |u| max |v| 𝜈 Δx2 Δy2
,
for merging of the pseudo-spectral and immersed bound-
(26)
ary methodologies. The algorithm used to solve the dif-
ferential model is described below: where the CFL is a number between 0 and 1.

1. Project the velocity field, Pim ûm , in order to always

t

ensure that the divergence of the velocity is on the 3 Results

order of round-off errors, e.g. for double precision, this
is: 3.1 Manufactured solution
( )t
𝜕uj A synthesised or manufactured solution was used to deter-
≃ 10−15 . (23) mine a source term, thereby giving an analytical solution
𝜕xj
to the velocity and pressure fields. This source term, which
2. Calculate the predicted velocity in Fourier space using has dimensions of [N/m3 ], is added to the Navier–Stokes
the Fourier transform of Eq. 11: equations, which has a numerical solution that can be com-
[ ] pared with the synthesised solution [20]. The following
û∗i = ûti + Δt −𝜈k2 ûti − Pim NLT
̂t ,
m (24) equations, proposed by [35], are used in the present work:
( ) ( ) 𝜈t 2 2
where NLT̂m is the nonlinear term pseudo-spectrally ax by − L2 (a +b )
uan =Ur sin cos e r , (27)
transformed. The skew-symmetric form is used. Lr Lr
it
3. Transform û∗i to the physical space, using a backward
( ) ( )
Fourier transformed, to obtain u∗it
i
. a ax by − L𝜈t2 (a2 +b2 )
4. Interpolate u∗it to the Lagrangian boundaries using van = − Ur cos sin e r , (28)
i b Lr Lr
Eq. 17, when there is coincidence between the Lagran-
gian and Eulerian points or using Eq. 19 when there is [ ( ) ( )2 ] 𝜈t 2 2
2
no coincidence. This procedure gives Ui∗it. a2 by by −2 (a +b )
pan = − 𝜌Ur2 cos − sin e Lr2 ,
5. Calculate Fiit using Eq. 13. 2b2 Lr Lr
6. Distribute Fiit over the Eulerian domain using Eq. 18 (29)
or Eq. 20 when there is or is not coincidence, respec-
where uan and van are the analytical solutions for the velocity
tively, to give fiit.
components, pan is the analytical solution for the pressure
7. Transform fiit to the Fourier spectral space using the
it it field, a and b are constants, x and y are the components of
forward Fourier transformed, providing ̂ fi . Project ̂
fi
over plane 𝜋.
it+1
8. Update the velocity, û∗i , using Eq. 25:
it
ûi
t+Δt,it+1
= ûi
∗,it
+ ΔtPim f̂m . (25)

9. Calculate 𝜀 using Eq. 16.

10. Determine whether 𝜀 is less than the specified toler-
ance, see Eq. 16. If the tolerance criterion is not satis-
fied, return to step 3. If the tolerance criterion is satis-
fied, go to the next time step (return to step 1).

We note that the Euler scheme, for temporal discretisa-

tion, was used only for demonstrating the algorithm. In
the present work, the fourth-order, low-dispersion and
low-storage Runge–Kutta method, which was developed
by [33], is used. Furthermore, a variable time step was
used based on CFL criterion [34].

Fig. 2  Time distribution of the L2 norm for both cases: the Taylor–
Green problem with and without the immersed boundary

13
388 Page 8 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388

the coordinate system, t is the time, and 𝜌 and 𝜈 are the fluid taken as t∕tr = 10.0 . The global error of the simulation can
density and the kinematic viscosity, respectively. be determined using the L2 norm (Eq. 30) calculated over
The main goal of this simulation was to verify the pro- the entire domain at each time point. This procedure was
posed methodology and its numerical implementation. used for the Taylor–Green problem without and with the
In order to compare the numerical simulation with the immersed boundary.
analytical solution, the initial and boundary conditions �
� Nx Ny � �2
were determined using Eqs. 27, 28 and 29. This proce- � ∑ ∑ num
� an
dure results in periodic boundary conditions, which are � Θ − Θ
(30)
� i j ij ij
appropriate for the Fourier pseudo-spectral method. The L2 = ,
NxNy
control parameters, as suggested by [36], are the vor-
tex diameters,
[ Lr = 𝜋 [m], and ] the maximum velocity, where Θnum and Θan stand, respectively, for the numerical
Ur = max uan (t = 0), van (t = 0) = 1[m∕s]. The reference and analytical solutions of the generic variable field, Θ, i.e.
time is given by Lr ∕Ur = 𝜋[s]. The Reynolds number is (u, v, p).
defined by ReLr = r𝜈 r .
UL

All of the simulations presented in this section were con-
ducted in a domain given by [0.0, 2.0𝜋∕Lr] × [0.0, 2.0𝜋∕Lr]
and ReLr = 10.0 . The constants a and b are taken to be
𝜋 . The domain was discretised using Nx = 16 × Ny = 16
collocation points, and the maximum simulation time was
3.1.1 Manufactured solution without and with a coincident
immersed boundary
An initial simulation was carried out, setting the source term
fm in Eq. 7 equal to zero. Figure 2 shows the time evolution
of the L2 norm for the u component of the velocity field.
It shows the high accuracy of the Fourier pseudo-spectral
methodology, as the maximum error reaches 10−15, though
the simulation is performed with a coarse mesh of 16 × 16
collocation points.
The second test for verifying the Fourier pseudo-spectral
methodology was to place an immersed boundary in the Tay-
lor–Green problem. This type of coupling was proposed and
used in [36, 37].
The first part of this study was done with the immersed
boundary being coincident with part of the collocated
Eulerian points, indicating the ΓPhD domain in Fig. 1
need in IMERSPEC methodology, a square of side length
L∕Lr = 1∕𝜋 is placed into Eulerian domain, Ω , and all of
the Lagrangian points are coincident with the Eulerian col-
location points. The procedure for verifying the coupling
of the Eulerian and Lagrangian meshes(involves setting
) the
velocity of the immersed boundary U 𝐱k , t + Δt equal to
the analytical velocity calculated at the Lagrangian points.

Fig. 3  IMERSPEC rate of convergence; the norm L2 of the u velocity

component; t∕tr = 1.0; different interpolation and distribution func-
tions

Table 1  Absolute maximum Collocation points Cubic Six points Hat Gaussian Cosine
errors of the u velocity
component in t∕tr = 1.0 to 256 × 256 2.05E−09 1.10E−08 1.83E−05 4.31E−05 8.03E−05
different interpolation and
128 × 128 3.66E−08 1.66E−07 8.38E−05 1.77E−04 2.69E−04
distribution functions
64 × 64 4.80E−07 2.47E−06 2.83E−04 6.72E−04 8.34E−04
32 × 32 8.78E−06 3.59E−05 1.24E−03 2.82E−03 3.14E−03
16 × 16 1.33E−04 5.97E−04 4.78E−03 1.16E−02 1.43E−02

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388
The results of L2 norm show that, in both cases, the maxi-
mum error is on the order of 10−15, as shown in Fig. 2, which
characterises the high accuracy obtained with this method-
ology. It worth noting that the mesh used was 16 × 16 and
that this calculation was also done for finer meshes with the
same accuracy being obtained. This result characterises a
methodology with spectral accuracy, as expected.
3.1.2 Manufactured solution with a non‑coincident
immersed boundary
This case was developed for a non-coincident immersed
boundary to study the effects of the interpolation and distri-
bution procedures given by Eqs. 19 and 20. A circular geom-
etry of diameter L∕Lr = 1∕𝜋 , where placed in centre of Ω
domain and there is no coincidence between the Lagrangian
points and the Eulerian points. The error must be attributed
only to the interpolation and distribution procedures.
Five distribution and interpolation functions were used,
as described in [32], and the results show the behaviour of
the methodology related to the type of the distribution and
interpolation functions used. Figure 3 is obtained by dou-
bling the number of Eulerian collocation points for each
coordinate direction: 16 × 16 , 32 × 32 , 64 × 64 , 128 × 128
and 256 × 256. The number of Lagrangian points was also
Fig. 4  Geometrical characteris-
tics of the backward-facing step
Fig. 5  Backward-facing step;
expected physical character-
istics
Page 9 of 23 388
changed: 28, 56, 112, 224 and 448 in order to maintain
Δx ≃ Δs . For each simulation, the L2 norm of the u veloc-
ity component is calculated after t∕tr = 1.0 . The time step
Δt = 10−4 [s] was used for all simulations. This time step
does not influence the results obtained using different spatial
refinements. In Table 1, the absolute maximum errors, of
each function by the number of collocation points, are shown
to the u velocity component.
The Gaussian, hat and cosine functions give the IMER-
SPEC methodology a second-order convergence. Of these
three functions, the hat function gives the most accurate
results. The six-point function and the cubic function give
the IMERSPEC methodology a fourth-order convergence
and the cubic function gives the most accurate results. In
Table 1 are shown the absolute maximum errors to five inter-
polation and distribution functions, where the high accuracy
of the IMERSPEC methodology can be observed.
Importantly, all of the variables, including the pressure,
show a numerical convergence of at least the fourth order.
This is one of the main characteristics of the IMERSPEC
methodology: it is an immersed-boundary-based methodol-
ogy with spatial convergence of the fourth order. Another
important characteristic is that the pressure field presents
the same order of convergence as the velocity. Normally,
13
388 Page 10 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388
conventional methods present an order of convergence for
the pressure that is smaller than that of the other variables.
The result for the velocity v presents the same error and the
same order of convergence as the velocity u. It is interesting
that the Lagrangian velocity U also presents a convergence
of the fourth order. This result is important and shows that
the flow is not affected by the presence of the Lagrangian
immersed boundary.
Comparing the presented results with the reports pub-
lished up to this point, the proposed methodology gives one
of the highest orders of convergence when the immersed
boundary method is used. The works of [36, 37] presented
simulations of the same problem with the same parameters.
They obtained second-order convergence and a low level
of accuracy, as compared with the present work’s results
obtained using the interpolation/distribution methods given
the six-point function and the cubic function.
However, it is important to note that manufactured solu-
tions used (Eqs. 27, 28 and 29) are smooth and the Gibbs
phenomenon does not appear, even in simulations that
immersed boundary is used, and there is no coincidence
between Lagrangian and Eulerian points. The present results
characterise that IMERSPEC methodology has been veri-
fied. When there is coincident points, it reaches round-off
errors, and when there is not coincident points, the fourth
order of spatial convergence is obtained. The limitations of
this order of convergence are the interpolation/distribution
functions and the temporal integration method. The next test
case is not smooth, and the Gibbs phenomenon will be again
addressed.
Fig. 6  Backward-facing step:
main characteristics of the peri-
odic and non-periodic domains
13
3.2 Two‑dimensional backward‑facing step flows
The backward-facing step is one of the most commonly used
test cases for verifying the potential of a new methodology.
It is geometrically simple and presents a high control of
the boundary layer detachment point. On the other hand,
it generates a notably complex flow with detachment and
reattachment points, shear flow, recirculation zones and
boundary layers. Many related experimental reports have
been published, for instance, [38–40], as well as numerical
results [41–44].
Figures 4 and 5 show, respectively,the geometrical infor-
mation and the expected physical characteristics of the flow
over this geometry. The geometry is characterised by an
entrance channel of length Lin and height (W − h). The step
has a height h. The channel after the step has length L and
height W. The ratio W/h is known as the aspect ratio.
Figure 5 illustrates the boundary layers at the inlet chan-
nel. The detachment of the boundary layer at the bottom
wall occurs at (x = 0, y = h) independently of the flow
upwind of this point. The boundary layer reattaches at
(x = Xr , y = 0). The boundary layer at the top wall detaches
at (x = Xs , y = W) and reattaches at (x = Xs + Xrs , y = W).
The detachment of the bottom wall boundary layer pro-
motes a recirculation zone and creates a mean inflectional
velocity field, which gives rise to Kelvin–Helmholtz insta-
bilities. The adverse pressure gradient downstream of the
step causes the top wall boundary layer to detach and creates
Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities below the top wall.
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388
Fig. 7  Periodicity effects of the backward-facing step flow
Therefore, the main characteristic of this problem is that
the geometry is simple, but the flow inside it is complex,
and within it one can find several kinds of physical insta-
bilities, such as boundary layer instabilities, Kelvin–Helm-
holtz instabilities, collisions of instabilities with the walls,
interactions between the instabilities, boundary layer detach-
ments, boundary layer reattachments and boundary layer
and Kelvin–Helmholtz interactions. The interactions of
Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities with the walls create coun-
ter-rotating pairs that can cross the entire channel, going
from one wall to the opposite one. Therefore, this geometry
results in a complex and interesting benchmark for validat-
ing a new methodology.
Figures 4 and 5 show that this problem is not periodic
in any direction; the main objective of the present work is
to make it periodic using the IMERSPEC methodology.
Fig. 8  a Streamwise velocity
component field and b stream-
line details at ℜh = 400 and
tU∞ ∕h = 400
Page 11 of 23 388
This goal is the natural step following the work of [19]. The
procedure consists of enclosing the non-periodic physical
domain within a periodic domain, which is done by using
the immersed boundary methodology to force the real non-
periodic boundary conditions inside the periodic domain.
Figure 6 shows the periodic domain ΩPeD, which is delimited
by the periodic boundary ΓPeD, which is represented by the
dashed line. The physical domain ΩPhD, which is delimited
by the physical boundary ΓPhD , is represented by the solid
line.
Over the entire frontier ΓPeD , periodic boundary con-
ditions are directly imposed. Over the frontier ΓPhD , one
can impose any kind of “boundary conditions” using the
immersed boundary method. From the point (0, 0) to the
point (0, h), from the point (0, W) to the point (L, W) and
from the point (0, 0) to the point (L, 0), the no-slipping
13
388 Page 12 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388

Fig. 9  Flow over the backward-facing step at ℜh = 400 and tU∕h = 400: a details of the flow at the buffer and forcing zones; b the effect of the
forcing zone on the streamwise velocity distribution at y∕h = 1.49

“boundary condition” is imposed, representing the presence
of solid walls. From the point (0, h) to the point (0, W), a
known velocity profile is forced, including the residual tur-
bulence, which is measured experimentally. Importantly, this
alternative way of imposing a “boundary condition” uses
the source term from the Navier–Stokes equations. This is a
Eulerian force term, 𝐟 (𝐱, t), which is obtained
( ) by the distri-
bution of the(Lagrangian force field, 𝐅 𝐱 , t . As previously
) k
described, 𝐅 𝐱k , t is calculated by the multi-direct forcing
method.
For the present work, special care was taken to obtain
convergence and physical consistency. Due to its periodicity,
the physical instabilities that pass through the outlet of the
domain are re-injected at its entrance, as illustrated in Fig. 7.
These instabilities must be dampened using a buffer zone
BZ, as illustrated in Fig. 6. The dampening process ensures
that the target velocity is attained at the entrance of the forc-
ing zone FZ. The forcing zone FZ is used to align the stream
lines before entering the physical domain ΩPhD. This process
is enforced in every case, assuring that the target velocity is
imposed over the entire domain FZ. In the present work, the
mean velocity profile to be forced is as follows:
This equation, which models the mean velocity at the physi-
cal domain entrance, is the same as that proposed in [38],
which corresponds to a developed flow inside a rectangular
channel. The mean velocity is Ū = 1.0 [m/s]. The dampen-
ing process in the buffer zone BZ is carried out using the
dampening function given by [45]:
( )
BZi = 𝜙 Qi − Qti , (32)
where Qti is the i component of the target velocity. In the
present case, one takes Qtx = Uin (y) in the streamwise direc-
tion and Qty = 0 in the vertical direction. Qi is the solution
obtained from the Navier–Stokes equations. The function 𝜙,
which models the vortex strain, is given by:
[ ( )]
1 x −x
𝜙= 1 − tanh 4 − 8 sB (33)
2 xsB − xfB
where xsB and xfB are, respectively, the beginning and the
end of the buffer zone.
All of the simulations presented in the present work
were carried out using the Runge–Kutta method, which is
of fourth order, using the optimised coefficients proposed by

if 0 ≤ y ≤ h
{ [33]. A value of CFL = 0.5 (Eq. 26) was also used. The sim-

−24(W − y)(h − y) if h < y ≤ W

0 ulation domain, presented in Fig. 6, has the following dimen-
Uin (y) = . (31)
sions: h = 0.5 [m]; Lx ∕h = 73.14; Ly ∕h = 2.29; W∕h = 2.0;
LBZ ∕h = 3.73; and LFZ ∕h = 0.53. The kinematic viscosity

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388 Page 13 of 23 388

Fig. 10  Comparison of horizontal velocity profiles for the present work and the experimental work of [38]: a x∕h = 0.0; b x∕h = 14.0; c
x∕h = 30.0

is given by 𝜈 = hU∕ℜ
̄ h , where ℜh is the Reynolds number
and Ū is the mean velocity at the entrance of the physical
domain.
3.2.1 Two‑dimensional backward‑facing step at ℜh = 400
In the present section, the simulated flow refers to ℜh = 400,
and the previously defined domain is divided into Nx = 2048
and Ny = 64 collocation points. In defining control
parameter for the multi-direct forcing method, a maximum
cycle number of NL = 200 or a maximal residual (Eq. 16) of
𝜀 = 10−5 were used. Figure 8a shows the streamwise velocity
component, and Fig. 8b gives a detailed view of streamlines.
The classical laminar flow with the bottom and the upper
recirculation zones is visualised in Fig. 8a, b. These recir-
culations appear because of the detachment of the boundary
layers. The laminar behaviour for this Reynolds number is
as expected.

13
388 Page 14 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388

Fig. 11  Temporal evolution of the L2 norm; a inlet profile and b bottom wall

Table 2  Reattachment and separation points for several mesh sizes: are driven to the entrance of the physical domain ΩPhD. Fig-
the reattachment point for the bottom wall, xr ∕h; the separation point ure 9a shows the streamlines for the case with the forcing
for the upper wall, xs ∕h; the separation point for the upper wall, xrs ∕h
zone where we can see that they are parallel to the walls, as
Collocation points xr ∕h xs ∕h xrs ∕h must happen in a wind tunnel, as illustrated in [19].
Figure 9b shows the streamwise velocity component
1024 × 32 12.0 10.47 20.15
values at y∕h = 1.49 obtained with and without the forcing
2048 × 64 12.16 10.12 20.51
zone. This figure also shows a reference solution or the target
4096 × 128 12.19 9.94 20.70
velocity, which is given by Eq. 31. We see that the stream-
Experimental [38] 12.90 10.30 20.50
lines become parallel for the fluid entry into the forcing zone
Numerical [41] 12.20 9.70 20.96
with the target velocity field used as a reference to calculate
the force profile given by Eq. 31. Without the forcing zone,
the velocity at the entrance plane does not reach the target
To demonstrate the importance of the buffer and forcing velocity value and is not parallel to the walls. The oscillation
zones, Fig. 9 shows the manner in which the fluid particles that appears after x∕h = 0.0 is already inside the domain

Fig. 12  Profile of friction coefficient a bottom wall and b top wall

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388 Page 15 of 23 388

Table 3  Approximate CPU time and storage memory and is the result of the first physical instabilities, such as the
Collocation points CPU time (h) RAM Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities.
memory Figure 10 presents comparisons between the results of
(MB) the present work and the experimental results of [38]. The
streamwise velocity is shown at three points: (a) x∕h = 0.0;
1024 × 32 30 20
(b) x∕h = 14.0; (c) x∕h = 30.0.
2048 × 64 130 80
At point (a), very good agreement is obtained, showing
4096 × 128 560 320
that the internal boundary is well modelled by the forcing
zone. At points (b) and (c), again, very good agreement is
attained with the experimental results of [38] and with the
numerical results of [41]. The L2 norm was also calculated
at the entrance of the domain that measures the difference
between the numerically recovered velocity and the target
velocity, which is given by Eq. 31, at the entrance of the
backward-facing step. The maximum value obtained for this
norm was L2 = 10−5 [m/s] for both velocity components, as
shown in Fig. 11. This result shows that the method used to
force the internal “boundary condition” is notably accurate
and stable during the time evolution of the numerical experi-
ment. It is possible to accurately reproduce the experimental
measurements, regarding the numerical representation of the
boundary conditions.

3.2.2 The influence of the mesh refinement

The next simulations and results show the behaviour of the

solution as the mesh is refined. The same domain and the

Fig. 13  Evolution of the forced velocity profile at the entrance of the

domain, x∕h = 0.0 (see Fig. 6), for the time t = Δt

Fig. 14  Temporal evolution of the L2 norm at the a entrance of the domain ( x∕h = 0.0); b bottom wall

13
388 Page 16 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388

Table 4  Cycle number NL, the reattachment point for the bottom results. The results of the present work improve as the mesh
wall, xr ∕h; the separation point for the upper wall, xs ∕h; and the sepa- is refined.
ration point for the upper wall, xrs ∕h
The approximate CPU time and the RAM memory used
Cycles number (NL) xr ∕h xs ∕h xrs ∕h in each simulations are provide in Table 3; these values are
obtained on a computer Intel®Xeon® CPU E3-1270 v3@,
1 15.17 13.93 20.98
3.5 [GHz] and 16 [Gb] RAM memory. The operational sys-
10 12.52 10.67 20.53
tem is the UBUNTU 14.04. The result of CPU time shows
100 12.20 10.20 20.47
that the relationship of the total collocation points is approx-
200 12.18 10.14 20.50
imately K ⋅ N ⋅ log2 N , where K is a constant and N is the
500 12.16 10.08 20.56
total of collocation points.
Experimental [38] 12.90 10.30 20.50
Numerical [41] 12.20 9.70 20.96
3.2.3 The multi‑direct forcing method

In this section, the influence of the number of loops (NL) on

same parameters for the multi-direct forcing method used in
the previous section are used in the present section. Three
different simulations were carried out using three different
levels of mesh refinement. Importantly, the L2 norm meas-
ures how close the forced boundary condition is to the pro-
posed boundary condition. For instance, the L2 norm that
is calculated at the entrance measures how close the forced
boundary condition is to the experimental velocity profile.
On the other hand, the L2 norm calculated at the horizontal
walls measures how close we are to the no-slip boundary
condition.
Figure 11 show that the forcing process is sensitive to
the mesh refinement and that the accuracy of the method
increases as the mesh is refined.
The skin friction coefficient, Cf , is a important parameter
measure in backward-facing step [46–48], and is expressed
by Eq. 34:
2𝜏w
Cf = , (34)
𝜌Ū 2
( )
where 𝜏w is the wall shear stress, 𝜏w = 𝜇 du
dy y=w
In Fig. 12 shows the distribution of skin friction coef-
ficient downstream of a backward-facing step on bottom (a)
and top (b) walls, for the three different meshes. The results
of Fig. 12 are used to obtain the position of reattachment
point for the bottom wall, and the separation and reattach-
ment points for the upper wall, respectively, are given in
Table 2.
Table 2 presents the reattachment point for the bottom
wall and the separation and reattachment points for the upper
wall. These parameters are compared with the experimental
results of [38] and the numerical results of [41]. The con-
vergence of results is highlighted, i.e. when the refinement
increase the results close to experimental and numerical
the multi-direct forcing method is presented. A discretisa-
tion process is used with Nx = 2048 and Ny = 64 collocation
points. The parameter NL was used as the simulation stop-
ping criterion. Figure 13 shows the “internal boundary con-
dition” at the domain entrance, x∕h = 0.0 (see Fig. 6), and
at the first time step, t = Δt . The velocity profiles are shown
for different interaction numbers using the same simulation.
As the NL parameter is increased, the forced velocity pro-
file becomes independent of this parameter and tends to the
experimental velocity profile measured at this section of the
domain, as given by Eq. 31.
The difference between the forced and the experimental
inlet velocity is evaluated using the L2 norm calculated
using all of the collocation points placed at the entrance
plane. Figure 14a shows the time distribution of L2 for the
u component of the velocity at the inlet of the domain.
Similarly, Fig. 14b shows the L2 norm at the bottom wall.
The difference between the forced velocity and the target
velocity is slight, and, as the cycle number of the direct
forcing is increased, the L2 norm reaches 10−5 [m/s] and
10−7 [m/s]. Thus, the “internal boundary conditions” are
well represented when compared with the experimental
results at the entrance and with the no-slip condition at
the solid walls.
Table 4 shows the influence of the cycle number of the
direct forcing method for the following parameters: the
reattachment point at the bottom wall, xr ∕h ; the separation
point at the upper wall, xs ∕h ; and the separation point at
the upper wall, xrs ∕h . It also presents a comparison of the
experimental and numerical results of [38, 41]. We see
that the cycling process is notably important. With only
one cycle, the error is considerable. Increasing the cycle
number decreases the error, which reaches a notably low
level. The results show that, for NL greater than 10, the
results do not change significantly.

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388 Page 17 of 23 388

Fig. 15  Instantaneous vorticity fields (𝜔z ) for different Reynolds numbers at tU∕h = 100

13
388 Page 18 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388

Table 5  Reattachment point at the bottom wall ( xr ∕h) for several Afterwards, there are strong interactions between the
Reynolds number values “turbulent” structures and the walls, as shown in Fig. 16b.
ℜh Experimental work [38] Present work Notably interesting physical effects are observed in Fig. 16c.
Figure 16d shows the details of the vortex injection inside
200 8.30 8.50
the domain caused by very strong shear effects. These types
250 9.10 9.71
of physical effects and details can only be obtained when
300 10.30 10.64
highly accurate numerical methods are used.
350 11.10 11.39
Furthermore, the instabilities that leave the domain,
400 12.90 12.18
Fig. 6, are damped by buffer zone and the function 𝜙 ,
450 13.20 12.61
(Eq. 33) is fundamental to smooth the outlet flow and avoid
500 15.50 13.50
the Gibbs phenomenon.
We would like to stress that no turbulence model was
used; thus, only methods with high accuracy or mesh refine-
3.2.4 Different Reynolds numbers ment can capture the flow details presented in Fig. 16.

In this section, the simulation results for several Reyn-
olds number values are presented. A mesh of 2048 × 64
collocation points was used. The Reynolds numbers stud-
ied range from 200 to 6000. Figure 15 presents the vor-
ticity fields for the backward-facing step. The buffer and
forcing zones are not presented. For Reynolds numbers
ranging from 200 to 600, the flow does not present any
instability, as expected. For Reynolds numbers ranging
from 800 to 2500, the flow becomes instable, giving rise
to Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities near the step that are
transported towards the bottom wall reattachment point.
Instabilities are also formed beyond the detachment point
on the upper wall.
These instabilities interact with each other and are
transported towards the outlet of the channel. This find-
ing is a classical result that is obtained with the proposed
methodology in the present work. For Reynolds numbers
ranging from 3000 to 6000, the instabilities present chaotic
behaviour, as expected for higher Reynolds numbers.
Table 5 shows the reattachment point at the bottom wall
( xr ∕h ), for several Reynolds number values and a com-
parison with the experimental results of [38]. There is
good agreement for Reynolds numbers smaller than 400.
For higher values of this parameter, the error increases
as expected for two-dimensional simulations, as was also
reported in [39].
Figure 16 shows the details of the flow, which gives
rise to considerable information. Just downstream of the
step, the shear layer is captured, which gives rise to the
Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities, as shown in Fig. 16 (a).
3.3 Three‑dimensional backward‑facing step flows
Furthermore, the IMERSPEC methodology has been
extended to study the three-dimensional fluid flows and was
developed a computational parallel code, which is verified
in work of [18]. This three-dimensional computational code
has the same features of the two-dimensional computational
code and presents three turbulence models based in large
eddy simulation (LES) and it is parallised by using distrib-
uted memory multi-computer with MPI. For more details,
see the work of [18]. In the present work, the three-dimen-
sional parallel code is used to analise the backward-facing
step flows.
The simulation domain, presented in Fig. 6, has the fol-
lowing dimensions: h = 0.5 [m], Lx ∕h = 54.86, Ly ∕h = 2.29,
W∕h = 2.0 ; LBZ ∕h = 3.60 e LFZ ∕h = 0.70 , with NL = 200
number of loops on the multi-direct forcing method and
the value of CFL = 0.5 (Eq. 26) was also used. The third
dimension has length Lz ∕h = 9.16. The inlet velocity profile,
given by Eq. 31, is imposed throughout z direction in forcing
zone ( LFZ ∕h) and periodic boundary conditions are directly
imposed in z direction. The domain is discretised using
Nx = 768, Ny = 32 and Nz = 32 collocation points and to the
parallel computation the domain is divided equally by four
processor in x direction, i.e. each processor gets Nx = 192,
Ny = 32 and Nz = 32 collocation points.
In this work simulated the three-dimensional backward-
facing step flow at two Reynolds numbers, ℜh = 400 and
ℜh = 1000. In the simulation at ℜh = 400, a comparison of
horizontal velocity profiles of the two-dimensional results

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388 Page 19 of 23 388

Fig. 16  Details of the vorticity field over the backward-facing step for ℜh = 6000

13
388 Page 20 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388

Fig. 17  Comparison of horizontal velocity profiles of the experimental work of the [38], two-dimensional ( Nx = 2048, Ny = 64) and three-
dimensional of the present work in tU∞ ∕h = 100.0 a (x∕h;z∕h) = (7.0;4.58) and b (x∕h;z∕h) = (15.0;4.58)

Fig. 18  Three-dimensional backward-facing step flows at ℜh = 1000 em tU∞ ∕h = 100.0. a Iso-superface of the vorticity 𝜔z = −1.0 (black) and
𝜔z = 1.0 (white); b iso-superface of the vorticity 𝜔z = −1.0; c plane of vorticity in ( z∕h − 0.5)

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388
Table 6  Mean position of the reattachment point for the bottom wall,
xr
Literature ℜh = 400 ℜh = 1000
IMERSPEC 2D 12.16 18.10
IMERSPEC 3D 11.70 12.42
Experimental [38] 12.90 12.80
of the present work (IMERSPEC 2D) and the experimental
work of [38] is presented in Fig. 17.
In Fig. 17 at points (a) and (b), very good agreement is
attained with both the experimental results of [38] and the
two-dimensional numerical results of the present work. The
results of the velocity in 2D and 3D simulations are close,
as expected, due at ℜh = 400 is laminar flow and there is not
velocity component in z direction, i.e. w ≈ 0.
In Fig. 18 is presented the plot of vorticity field, 𝜔z , in
different viewing positions to the simulation of three-dimen-
sional backward-facing step flow at ℜh = 1000.
Figure 18 shows that a recirculation appears because exist
the detachment of the boundary layer. From the reattachment
point in the bottom wall arises the transition to turbulence
flow. Notably, interesting physical effects can be observed,
which gives rise to the Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities, as
shown in Fig. 18a, c. The Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities
cause the formation of eddies, which interact with the botton
and upper walls. In Fig. 18b—upper view, the vortex begins
Fig. 19  Temporal evolution of the L2 norm; a inlet profile and b bottom wall
Page 21 of 23 388
to oscillate in z direction, one of the characteristics of the
transition to turbulence.
Furthermore, Table 6 shows the comparison of three
works of the mean position of the reattachment point for
the bottom wall ( xr ). This parameter is compared with the
experimental results of [38] and the two-dimensional numer-
ical results of the present work (IMERSPEC 2D).
The simulation at ℜh = 400 to IMERSPEC 3D presents
the position of the reattachment point for the bottom wall,
xr , close to the results of the simulations of the IMERSPEC
2D and experimental data of [38] as expected, because the
flow is laminar and stable. The three-dimensional numerical
results at ℜh = 1000 are close to, only, the experimental data
[38]. In two-dimensional simulations, even using a refined
mesh (2048 × 64 collocation nodes) the results do not come
close the experimental data. These results show that the
backward-facing step flow at ℜh = 1000 has strong three
dimensional characteristics. Then, the three-dimensional
simulations is required to analise this flow.
Lastly, Fig. 19 shows the time distribution of L2 norm for
the horizontal velocity component at the inlet of the domain
(a) and at the bottom wall (b) to different Reynolds numbers.
The errors present in Fig. 19 are larger in the inlet plane,
order of 10−4, due to the influence of the vortex that appears
because the periodic bondary coditions, to see Fig. 7. In the
botton wall, the errors are smaller order (10−5) and the errors
of the upper wall and of the others velocity components (v
and w) were not shown, but are the same order of the errors
of the botton wall.
13
388 Page 22 of 23 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388
4 Conclusions
In the present paper, the IMERSPEC methodology was pre-
sented, which is based on a merging of the immersed bound-
ary and Fourier pseudo-spectral method, showing to be pos-
sible to use Fourier pseudo-spectral method to simulate flow
over complex geometries retaining part of its accuracy.
The immersed boundary method is based on the works of
[4, 25]. This methodology may be applied to a large number
of problems that can be described by a Cartesian immersed
boundary. For non-Cartesian problems, fourth-order conver-
gence is attained. The proposed methodology was rigorously
verified through comparison with a synthesised analytical
solution. Furthermore, a weighted spectral accuracy was
attained for a large spectrum of Cartesian problems. Thus,
after the numerical verification, a validation work was car-
ried out.
The complex flows occurring over a backward-facing step
were chosen. Two-dimensional simulations were carried out,
and the results were compared with the experimental and
numerical results of other authors. Very good agreement was
obtained, and we consider the proposed methodology to be
promising for solving complex flows.
The more important characteristics of the proposed meth-
odology include that the mass balance is on the order of
the round-off errors; that there is no velocity and pressure
coupling for incompressible flows, and as a consequence,
that no linear system needs to be solved for the pressure;
that the pressure field can be recovered as a post-processing
procedure, giving the same accuracy and the same order of
convergence as the velocity field; and that the methodology
is easy to use and implement.
Acknowledgements Part of the methodology and results of the com-
puter simulations of flows over a backward-facing step were previously
presented, summarised in conference paper [49], in order to compare
with experiments carried out by the authors themselves. It is notewor-
thy that in the present article it is a single and concise document, where
details of the proposed methodology are shown, together with all data
from the verification and validation processes. The authors would like
to acknowledge CNPq, CAPES, FAPEMIG, FAPEG and FURNAS
Centrais Elétricas and the “Programa de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento
Tecnológico” (P&D) of the ANEEL for supporting the development
of the present work.
Funding The research leading to these results received funding from
CNPq, CAPES, FAPEMIG, FAPEG and FURNAS Centrais Elétricas
and the “Programa de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico”
(P&D) of the ANEEL.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no competing interests to declare
that are relevant to the content of this article and have no relevant fi-
nancial or non-financial interests to disclose.
13
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
References
1. Nakahashi K, Ito Y, Togashi F (2003) Some challenges of realistic
flow simulations by unstructured grid CFD. Int J Numer Methods
Fluids 43:769–783
2. Peskin CS (1972) Flow patterns around heart valves: a numerical
method. J Comput Phys 10:252–271
3. Goldstein D, Adachi T, Sakata H (1993) Modeling a no-slip flow
with an external force field. J Comput Phys 105:354–366
4. Lima e Silva AL, Silveira-Neto A, Damasceno J (2003) Numerical
simulation of two dimensional flows over a circular cylinder using
the immersed boundary method. J Comput Phys 189:351–370
5. Mittal R, Iaccarino G (2005) Immersed boundary methods. Annu
Rev Fluid Mech 37:239–261
6. Ghafouri A, Hassanzadeh A (2017) Numerical study of red blood
cell motion and deformation through a michrochannel using lattice
Boltzmann-immersed boundary method. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng
39:1873–1882
7. Canuto C, Hussaini MY, Quarteroni A, Zang TA (2007) Spectral
Methods: evolution to complex geometries and applications to
fluid dynamics. Springer, Berlin
8. Trefethen L (2000) Spectral methods in Matlab, 1st edn. Society
for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia
9. Karniadakis G, Sherwin S (1999) Spectral/hp element methods
for CFD. Oxford University Press, Oxford
10. Avila R, Ramos E, Atluri SN (2009) The Chebyshev Tau spec-
tral method for the solution of the linear stability equations for
Rayleigh-Bernard convection with melting. Comput Model Eng
Sci 51:73–92
11. Lele S (1992) Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like
resolution. J Comput Phys 103:15–42
12. Canuto C, Hussaini MY, Quarteroni A, Zang TA (1987) Spectral
methods in fluid dynamics. Springer, Berlin
13. Canuto C, Hussaini MY, Quarteroni A, Zang TA (2006) Spectral
Methods: fundamentals in single domains. Springer, Berlin
14. Nascimento AA, Mariano FP, Padilla ELM, da Silveira-Neto A
(2014) A comparison of Fourier pseudospectral method and finite
volume method used to solve the Burgers equation. J Braz Soc
Mech Sci Eng 36:737–742
15. Cooley TW, Tukey JW (1965) An algorithm for the machine cal-
culation of complex Fourier series. Mathematics Computation
19:297–301
16. Takahashi D (2007) An implementation of parallel 1-D FFT using
SSE3 instructions on dual-core processors. In: Proceedings of
workshop on state-of-the-art in scientific and parallel computing
(PARA 2006), lecture notes in computer science, vol 4699, pp
1178–1187
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2022) 44: 388
17. Briggs W, Henson V (1995) The DFT. SIAM, Philadelphia
18. Moreira L, Mariano F, Silveira-Neto A (2011) The importance of
adequate turbulence modeling in fluid flows. Comput Model Eng
Sci 75:113–140
19. Mariano FP, Moreira LQ, Silveira-Neto A, da Silva CB, Pereira
JCF (2010) A new incompressible Navier–Stokes solver combin-
ing Fourier pseudo-spectral and immersed boundary method.
Comput Model Eng Sci 59:181–216
20. Nascimento AA, Mariano FP, Padilla ELM, da Silveira-Neto A
(2020) Comparison of the convergence rates between Fourier
pseudo-spectral and finite volume method using Taylor-Green
vortex problem. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 42:1–10
21. Kinoshita D, Padilla ELM, da Silveira-Neto A, Mariano FP,
Serfaty R (2016) Fourier pseudospectral method for nonperiodical
problems: a general immersed boundary method for three types of
thermal boundary conditions. Numer Heat Transf Part B Fundam
70:537–558
22. Kinoshita D, da Silveira-Neto A, Mariano FP, da Silva RAP,
Serfaty R (2016) A novel immersed boundary/Fourier pseu-
dospectral method for flows with thermal effects. Numer Heat
Transf Part B Fundam 69:312–333
23. Villela M, Villar M, Serfaty R, Mariano FP, da Silveira-Neto
A (2017) Mathematical modeling and numerical simulation of
two-phase flows using Fourier pseudospectral and front-tracking
methods: the proposition of a new method. Appl Math Model
52:241–254
24. Peskin CS (2002) The immersed boundary method. Acta Numer
11:479–517
25. Wang Z, Fan J, Luo K (2008) Combined multi-direct forcing and
immersed boundary method for simulating flows with moving
particles. Int J Multiph Flow 34:283–302
26. Silveira-Neto A (2020) Escoamentos Turbulentos: Analise fisica
e modelagem teorica. Composer, Uberlândia
27. Takahashi D (2006) A hybrid MPI/OpenMP implementation of a
parallel 3-D FFT on SMP clusters. In: Proceedings of 6th interna-
tional conference on Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics
(PPAM 2005), lecture notes in computer science, vol 3911, pp
970–977
28. Capizzano F (2010) A turbulent wall model for immersed bound-
ary methods. Am Inst Aeronaut Astronaut 1:1–22
29. Tornberg AK, Engquist B (2004) Numerical approximations of
singular source terms in differential equations. J Comput Phys
200:462–488
30. Stockie JM (1997) Analysis and computation of immersed bound-
aries, with application to pulp fibres. Ph.D. thesis, Institute of
Applied Mathematics, University of British Columbia
31. Su S, Lai M, Lin C (2007) An immersed boundary technique for
simulating complex flows with rigid boundary. Comput Fluids
36:313–324
32. Griffith BE, Peskin CS (2005) On the order of accuracy of the
immersed boundary method: higher order convergence rates for
sufficiently smooth problems. J Comput Phys 208:75–105
33. Allampalli V, Hixon R, Nallasamy M, Sawyer S (2009) High-
accuracy large-step explicit Runge–Kutta (HALE-RK) schemes
for computational aeroacoustics. J Comput Phys 228:3837–3850
Page 23 of 23 388
34. Courant R, Friedrichs K, Lewy H (1967) On the partial difference
equations of mathematical physics. IBM J 11:215–234
35. Taylor G, Green AE (1937) Mechanism of the production of small
eddies from large ones. Proc R Soc Lond 158:499–521
36. Kim J, Kim D, Choi H (2001) An immersed-boundary finite-
volume method for simulation of flow in complex geometries. J
Comput Phys 171:132–150
37. Uhlmann M (2005) An immersed boundary method with direct
forcing for the simulation of particulate flows. J Comput Phys
209:448–476
38. Lee T, Mateescu D (1998) Experimental and numerical investiga-
tion of 2-d backward-facing step flow. J Fluids Struct 12:703–716
39. Armaly B, Durst F, Pereira J, Schonung B (1983) Experimental
and theoretical investigation of backward-facing step flow. J Fluid
Mech 127:473–496
40. Eaton JK, Johnston JP (1980) Turbulent flow reattachment: an
experimental study of the flow and structure behind a backward-
facing step. Thermosciences Division, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Stanford University, Rept. MD-39
41. Gartling D (1990) A test problem for outflow boundary condi-
tions—flow over a backward-facing step. Int J Numer Methods
Fluids 11:953–967
42. Silveira-Neto A, Grand D, Métais O, Gonze MA, Lesieur M
(1993) A numerical investigation of the coherent vortices in tur-
bulence behind a backward-facing step. J Fluid Mech 256:1–25
43. Le H, Moin P, Kim J (1997) Direct numerical simulation of turbu-
lent flow over a backward-facing step. J Fluids Mech 330:349–374
44. Martinez JJ, Esperança PTT (2007) A Chebyshev collocation
spectral method for numerical simulation of incompressible flow
problems. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 29:317–328
45. Joslin RD, Streett CL, Chang CL (1991) Validation of 3D incom-
pressible spatial direct numerical simulation code. A comparison
with linear stability and parabolic stability equation theories for
boundary layer transition on a flat plate. Report NASA Langley
Research Center—NASA, vol 3205, pp 1–45
46. Gijsen F, van de Vosse F, Janssen J (1998) Wall shear stress in
backward-facing step flow of a red blood cell suspension. Bior-
heology 35:263–279
47. Iwai H, Nakabe K, Suzuki K (2000) Flow and heat transfer char-
acteristics of backward-facing step laminar flow in a rectangular
duct. Int J Heat Mass Transf 43:457–471
48. Tihon J, Penkavova V, Pantzali M (2010) The effect of inlet pul-
sations on the backward facing step flow. Eur J Mech B Fluids
29:224–235
49. Manzan-Junior WA, Vilela CAA, Mariano FP (2013) Experi-
mental and computational simulations of the flows over backward
facing step. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Congress of
Mechanical Engineering—COBEM 2013, pp 5677–5686
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13