A novel technique for including surface tension in PLIC-VOF methods

Meier, Markus; Yadigaroglu, G.; Smith, Brian L.

doi:10.1016/s0997-7546(01)01161-x

Cited by 145 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The A more detailed analysis of the parasitic currents generated by the FE-FV level set method is given in [26]. From the results obtained there, together with those given here, we can summarize that in general the magnitudes of the parasitic velocities of the FE-FV level set method fall in the same range as those of the second-order PLIC VOF algorithms [9,10].…”

Section: Parasitic Currentsmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Method B gives the highest (by one order of magnitude) value of the K * PC . Another common measure of the intensity of the parasitic currents is the maximum velocity u * max observed in the computational domain during a simulation [9,10]. We found in this example that the value of u * max (t * ) produced using Method A with = 2h and h rapidly reach the maximum values 0.028 and 0.02, respectively, and afterwards practically do not change with time.…”

Section: Parasitic Currentsmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…As a last comment to this section, we note that the average and maximum velocities of the parasitic flow produced by the PLIC VOF method have been reported to be proportional to the ratio / L [9,10]. The Reynolds number defined in terms of this parasitic velocity is equal to the Laplace number, La = L l c / 2 L , which is a non-dimensional number characterizing the dissipation processes in the interfacial region.…”

Section: Parasitic Currentsmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Others are the front-tracking method [5,6], the boundary integral method [7], and the volume-of-fluid (VOF) method [8][9][10]. Unfortunately, it does not appear possible at the present time to assert which of the methods is generally superior, as each appears to have its own strengths and weaknesses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On surface tension modelling using the level set method

Shepel¹,

Smith

2008

Numerical Methods in Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe paper describes and compares the performance of two options for numerically representing the surface tension force in combination with the level set interface-tracking method. In both models, the surface tension is represented as a body force, concentrated near the interface, but the technical implementation is different: the first model is based on a traditional level set approach in which the force is distributed in a band around the interface using a regularized delta function, whereas in the second, the force is partly distributed in a band around the interface and partly localized to the actual computational cells containing the interface. A comparative study, involving analysis of several two-phase flows with moving interfaces, shows that in general the two surface tension models produce results of similar accuracy. However, in the particular case of merging and pinching-off of interfaces, the traditional level set model of surface tension produces an error that results in non-converging solutions for film-like interfaces (i.e. ones involving large contact areas). In contrast, the second model, based on the localized representation of the surface tension force, displays consistent first-order convergence.

show abstract

Section: Parasitic Currentsmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Parasitic Currentsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Parasitic Currentsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On surface tension modelling using the level set method

Shepel¹,

Smith

2008

Numerical Methods in Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The other measure is to get an accurate calculation of surface tension by accurately calculating interface normals and curvatures from volume fractions. For this purpose, many methods have been developed, such as those in [Cummins et al, 2005;Francois et al, 2006;López & Hernández, 2010;Meier et al, 2002;Pilliod Jr. & Puckett, 2004;Y.Renardy & M. Renardy, 2002]. The method we use here is the height function (HF) technique, which has been shown to be second-order accurate, and superior to those based on kernel derivatives of volume fractions or RDF distributions [Cummins et al, 2005;Francois et al, 2006;Liovic et al, 2010].…”

Section: Surface Tensionmentioning

confidence: 99%