A unified finite volume framework for phase‐field simulations of an arbitrary number of fluid phases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While the phase‐field methodology is widely adopted for simulating two‐phase flows, the simulation of an arbitrary number ( N ≥ 2) of fluid phases at physical fidelity is non‐trivial and requires special attention concerning mathematical modelling, numerical discretization, and solution algorithm. We present our most recent work with a focus on validation for multiple immiscible, incompressible, and isothermal phases, enhancing further our library for diffuse interface phase‐field interface capturing methods in OpenFOAM (FOAM‐extend 4.0/4.1). The phase‐field method is an energetic variational formulation based on the work of Cahn and Hilliard where the interface is composed of a physical diffuse layer resembling realistic interfaces. The evolution of the phases is then governed by the minimization of the free energy of the system. The accuracy of the method is demonstrated for a number of test problems, including a floating liquid lens, bubble rise in two stratified layers, and drop impact onto thin liquid film.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".