
arXiv: 1405.5140
In this paper, four distinct approaches to Volume of Fluid (VOF) computational method are compared. Two of the methods are the 'simplified' VOF formulations, in that they do not require geometrical interface reconstruction. The assessment is made possible by implementing all four approaches into the same code as a switchable options. This allows to rule out possible influence of other parts of numerical scheme, be it the discretisation of Navier-Stokes equations or chosen approximation of curvature, so that we are left with conclusive arguments because only one factor differs the compared methods. The comparison is done in the framework of CLSVOF (Coupled Level Set Volume of Fluid), so that all four methods are coupled with Level Set interface, which is used to compute pressure jump via the GFM (Ghost-Fluid Method). Results presented include static advections, full N-S solutions in laminar and turbulent flows. The paper is aimed at research groups who are implementing VOF methods in their computations or intend to do it, and might consider a simplified approach as a preliminary measure, since the methods presented differ greatly in complication level, or ease of implementation expressed e.g. in number of code lines.
35 pages with 28 pictures
Other numerical methods (fluid mechanics), Fluid Dynamics (physics.flu-dyn), FOS: Physical sciences, Multiphase and multicomponent flows, Physics - Fluid Dynamics, Numerical Analysis (math.NA), Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph), two-phase flow, FOS: Mathematics, Mathematics - Numerical Analysis, volume of fluid, Physics - Computational Physics
Other numerical methods (fluid mechanics), Fluid Dynamics (physics.flu-dyn), FOS: Physical sciences, Multiphase and multicomponent flows, Physics - Fluid Dynamics, Numerical Analysis (math.NA), Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph), two-phase flow, FOS: Mathematics, Mathematics - Numerical Analysis, volume of fluid, Physics - Computational Physics
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 85 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
