Lattice Boltzmann Modeling of Drying of Porous Media Considering Contact Angle Hysteresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drying of porous media is governed by a combination of evaporation and movement of the liquid phase within the porous structure. Contact angle hysteresis induced by surface roughness is shown to influence multi-phase flows, such as contact line motion of droplet, phase distribution during drainage and coffee ring formed after droplet drying in constant contact radius mode. However, the influence of contact angle hysteresis on liquid drying in porous media is still an unanswered question. Lattice Boltzmann model (LBM) is an advanced numerical approach increasingly used to study phase change problems including drying. In this paper, based on a geometric formulation scheme to prescribe contact angle, we implement a contact angle hysteresis model within the framework of a two-phase pseudopotential LBM. The capability and accuracy of prescribing and automatically measuring contact angles over a large range are tested and validated by simulating droplets sitting on flat and curved surfaces. Afterward, the proposed contact angle hysteresis model is validated by modeling droplet drying on flat and curved surfaces. Then, drying of two connected capillary tubes is studied, considering the influence of different contact angle hysteresis ranges on drying dynamics. Finally, the model is applied to study drying of a dual-porosity porous medium, where phase distribution and drying rate are compared with and without contact angle hysteresis. The proposed model is shown to be capable of dealing with different contact angle hysteresis ranges accurately and of capturing the physical mechanisms during drying in different porous media including flat and curved geometries. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11242-021-01644-9.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".