Simulations of the breakup of liquid filaments on a partially wetting solid substrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report direct numerical simulations of liquid filaments breaking up into droplets on partially wetting substrates. It is motivated by recent experiments, linear stability analyses, and lubrication-based calculations. The fluid flow is governed by the Stokes equations and the contact line motion is handled by a phase-field model, which also serves to capture the interfacial motion. The coupled Stokes and Cahn-Hilliard equations are solved using a finite-element algorithm in three dimensions. This avoids additional approximations of the fluid flow or contact line motion, and allows us to compute arbitrary contact angles on the substrate. We simulate both the breakup of infinite liquid filaments via growing capillary waves and that of finite liquid filaments with drops pinching off from the ends, with a focus on the effect of the wetting angle. In both cases, substrate hydrophobicity promotes breakup of the thread, and decreases the spacing of the daughter drops. The results show the differences in the two processes and in the final drop size and spacing. The development of capillary waves agrees well with prior linear analysis and the end-pinching results offer new insights into this poorly understood phenomenon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".