[phsieh2005]

Hi, Majid,

It will be appreciated if you can let us know when your paper and solver is released.

Pei-Ying

[yamamoto]

Dear Vignesh,

I have implemented S-CLSVOF method in OpenFOAM.
And, I validated the solver.

The paper about validation of this solver was already published in DOI: 10.1002/fld.4267 from Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids.
The detail validation results are shown in this paper.

In my opinion,
S-CLSVOF method improves the calculation results slightly as discussed in this paper when the density or viscosity ratio is small.

In Albadawi et al. (2013), the physical properties are not updated by using Heaviside function. I think this non-updating method has a merit and a demerit. The merit is good conservation of the volume fraction. But, the demerit is an unbalance between CSF force and physical properties along the interface. (This demerit sometimes causes large error compared with original VOF method.)

I guess "Albadawi et al. (2013) updated alpha flux at first and after that they solves re-initialization equation. And finally they updated alpha flux once again."
(This corresponds that one larger cAlphaCorr value and this improves the numerical results very much.)

Original VOF is very sensitive for the cAlphaCorr value.

I recommend that
before evaluating S-CLSVOF method, one should check these parameters like cAlphaCorr, maxCo, etc..

Best reagards,

Takuya

[MajidHagh]

I'm finalizing the paper to submit. I have to wait for reviewers comments to see how it goes. As soon as the paper get accepted I'll put the solver online and I'll be here to guide everyone how to use it.
wish me luck on the paper review milestones.
Majid

[vigneshTG]

Originally Posted by yamamoto

Dear Vignesh,

I have implemented S-CLSVOF method in OpenFOAM.
And, I validated the solver.

The paper about validation of this solver was already published in DOI: 10.1002/fld.4267 from Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids.
The detail validation results are shown in this paper.

In my opinion,
S-CLSVOF method improves the calculation results slightly as discussed in this paper when the density or viscosity ratio is small.

In Albadawi et al. (2013), the physical properties are not updated by using Heaviside function. I think this non-updating method has a merit and a demerit. The merit is good conservation of the volume fraction. But, the demerit is an unbalance between CSF force and physical properties along the interface. (This demerit sometimes causes large error compared with original VOF method.)

I guess "Albadawi et al. (2013) updated alpha flux at first and after that they solves re-initialization equation. And finally they updated alpha flux once again."
(This corresponds that one larger cAlphaCorr value and this improves the numerical results very much.)

Original VOF is very sensitive for the cAlphaCorr value.

I recommend that
before evaluating S-CLSVOF method, one should check these parameters like cAlphaCorr, maxCo, etc..

Best reagards,

Takuya

Hi Takuya,

Thanks for the advice !! Actually the results are very accurate (way better than interfoam) in simple test cases like capillary rise between plates and shape of equilibrium drop ... I just reported here, that the magnitude of velocities (spurious currents) around the interface close to the contact line is higher !! I ran all my test cases at Co at 0.2 and nAlphaCorr at 1.

But somehow S-CLS method fails in problems where the mesh is not completely hexahedral !! I tried simulating the capillary rise in a v-groove, there depending upon the deltaX value that i set the results were varying neither one represents the physics reported in experiments. I know that deltaX should be set to dx/2 but what should i do in cases where the mesh has range of cell sizes ?

I read your paper and i am yet to try the method of updating fluid properties using heaveside function as you have suggested !!

Once again, thanks for taking time to reply !!

Have a nice weekend

[Saideep]

Hi Vignesh,

Just to mention a thing about the spurious currents at the interface, I have seen that restricting time step based on Co number is not a good option.

There is Brackbill time step restriction, though the time step falls drastically it does seem to reduce spurious currents. Using the following time step helps to eliminate/ reduce the capillary instabilities that can magnify the influence of spurious currents.

t = sqrt( ( (grid size)^3 * density)/(pi*surface tension))

Saideep

[pfavreau]

Originally Posted by MajidHagh

I'm finalizing the paper to submit. I have to wait for reviewers comments to see how it goes. As soon as the paper get accepted I'll put the solver online and I'll be here to guide everyone how to use it.
wish me luck on the paper review milestones.
Majid

Hi Majid,

I have read your paper ! Congrats :-) I am wondering if your solver could be applied on my case : displacement of a long bubble in small channel, at low Ca ?

And is it possible to share your code ?

Best regards,

Peter

[zangthanh]

Originally Posted by mheinz

Hiho,

so far I did not experience odd velocities at the interface.

My capillary number goes up to approximately 0.1, rising along with the runtime.

Regards,
Michael

Hi Michael,

I am trying to monitor capillary number which is calculated in twoPhaseProperties/contactAngle/dynamicAlphaContactAngle/dynamicAlphaContactAngle.C.

Could you please give me a advice to plot capillary number?

Thank you very much
Zang

[kk415]

Hi Majid,

I have seen your paper on ACLSVOFFoam. It's a great job. Is your solver available online?