A contact line force model for the simulation of drop impacts on solid surfaces using volume of fluid methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterizing the contact line dynamics on solid walls is often a crucial problem encountered in the simulation of complex interfacial unsteady flows, such as drop impacts on solid surfaces. In this work, a new model is proposed to reproduce the contact line dynamics in a simple but effective way, based on introducing in the momentum equation a force term proportional to the deviation of the calculated contact angle from the value predicted by a dynamic model that takes into account wettability hysteresis. The model has been implemented in a volume of fluid (VOF) method and is applied to the simulation of drop impacts leading to deposition outcomes, although it could be extended to other interface tracking methods and is also applicable to more complex drop impacts involving fingering and splashing. Numerous tests have been performed to evaluate the accuracy and robustness of the proposed model over a wide range of Reynolds and Weber numbers. The results substantially improve those obtained by imposing only the contact angle as a boundary condition at the contact line, and satisfactorily predict a variety of experimental results from the literature for very different impact and wettability conditions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".