MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019352951 · doi:10.1063/1.2364144

A computational study of the coalescence between a drop and an interface in Newtonian and viscoelastic fluids

2006· article· en· W2019352951 on OpenAlexaff
Pengtao Yue, Chunfeng Zhou, James J. Feng

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Thin Films
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDrop (telecommunication)MechanicsPhysicsCoalescence (physics)BreakupNewtonian fluidViscoelasticityThermodynamicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A drop falling onto a fluid-fluid interface may not merge with it at once but may undergo a so-called partial coalescence cascade. Experimental observations of this phenomenon have revealed fascinating features of the process for Newtonian as well as polymeric fluids. In this paper, we describe numerical simulations of partial coalescence based on a phase-field method. Results show that partial coalescence occurs for an intermediate range of drop sizes, and proceeds in two stages: capillary waves propagating along the drop and transforming it into a fluid column, and neck formation on the column and pinch-off of the secondary drop. In the first stage, interfacial energy turns into kinetic energy following film rupture, while in the second, the kinetic energy overcomes an energy barrier due to the initial increase in interfacial area during neck formation. A parametric study establishes a criterion for partial coalescence in terms of a maximum Ohnesorge number that applies to a wide range of fluid densities and viscosities as long as the Bond number is small. Viscoelasticity in either the drop or the matrix tends to delay the pinch-off of the secondary drop, and may even suppress partial coalescence altogether. The underlying mechanism is large tensile polymer stresses resisting the stretching and thinning of the fluid neck. The numerical results are in qualitative, and in some cases quantitative, agreement with prior experiments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Thin FilmsFrench-language works237,207