MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017585622 · doi:10.1063/5.0006033

A particle finite element-based model for droplet spreading analysis

2020· article· en· W3017585622 on OpenAlexafffund
Elaf Mahrous, Alex Jarauta, Thomas Chan, Pavel Ryzhakov, Adam Z. Weber, R. V. Roy, Marc Secanell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsAlberta EnergyUniversity of Alberta
FundersOffice of Energy EfficiencyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyFondazione Ticino OlonaRoyal Commission for Jubail and YanbuMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
KeywordsMechanicsPhysicsContact angleWettingCurvatureFinite element methodBoundary value problemSlip (aerodynamics)DissipationClassical mechanicsDissipative systemParticle (ecology)GeometryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A particle finite element method-based model is proposed to analyze droplet dynamics problems, particularly droplet spreading on solid substrates (wetting). The model uses an updated Lagrangian framework to formulate the governing equations of the liquid. The curvature of the liquid surface is tracked accurately using a deforming boundary mesh. In order to predict the spreading rate of the droplet on the solid substrate and track the corresponding contact angle evolution, dissipative forces at the contact line are included in the formulation in addition to the Navier-slip boundary conditions at the solid–liquid interface. The inclusion of these boundary conditions makes it possible to account for the induced Young’s stress at the contact line and for the viscous dissipation along the solid–liquid interfacial region. These are found to be essential to obtain a mesh-independent physical solution. The temporal evolution of the contact angle and the contact line velocity of the proposed model are compared with spreading droplets and micro-sessile droplet injection experiments and are shown to be in good agreement.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207