MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602720484

Simulations of Droplet Coalescence in Simple Shear Flow

2012· article· en· W2602720484 on OpenAlexaff
Orest Shardt, Jos Derksen, Sushanta K. Mitra

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Physical Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPéclet numberLattice Boltzmann methodsCapillary actionCoalescence (physics)Capillary numberReynolds numberWeber numberMechanicsMaterials scienceThermal diffusivityTurbulencePhysicsThermodynamics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulating droplet coalescence is challenging because small-scale (tens of nanometers) phenomena determine the behavior of much larger (micrometer- to millimeter-scale) droplets. In general, liquid droplets colliding in a liquid medium coalesce when the capillary number is less than a critical value. We present simulations of droplet collisions and coalescence in simple shear flow using the free-energy binary-liquid lattice Boltzmann method. In previous simulations of low-speed collisions, droplets coalesced at unrealistically high capillary numbers. Simulations of noncoalescing droplets have not been reported, and therefore, the critical capillary number for simulated collisions was unknown. By simulating droplets with radii up to 100 lattice nodes, we determine the critical capillary number for coalescence and quantify the effects of several numerical and geometric parameters. The simulations were performed with a well-resolved interface, a Reynolds number of one, and capillary numbers from 0.01 to 0.2. The ratio of the droplet radius and interface thickness has the greatest effect on the critical capillary number. As in experiments, the critical capillary number decreases with increasing droplet size. A second numerical parameter, the interface diffusivity (Peclet number) also influences the conditions for coalescence: coalescence occurs at higher capillary numbers with lower Peclet numbers (higher diffusivity). The effects of the vertical offset between the droplets and the confinement of the droplets were also studied. Physically reasonable results were obtained and provide insight into the conditions for coalescence. Simulations that match the conditions of experiments reported in the literature remain computationally impractical. However, the scale of the simulations is now sufficiently large that a comparison with experiments involving smaller droplets (≈10 μm) and lower viscosities (≈10(-6) m(2)/s, the viscosity of water) may be possible. Experiments at these conditions are therefore needed to determine the interface thickness and Peclet number that should be used for predictive simulations of coalescence phenomena.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the American Physical SocietySame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207