A Benchmark Evaluation of the isoAdvection Interface Description Method for Thermally–Driven Phase Change Simulation

Abstract

A benchmark study is conducted using isoAdvection as the interface description method. In different studies for the simulation of the thermal phase change of nanofluids, the Volume of Fluid (VOF) method is a contemporary standard to locate the interface position. One of the main drawbacks of VOF is the smearing of the interface, leading to the generation of spurious flows. To solve this problem, the VOF method can be supplemented with a recently introduced geometric method called isoAdvection. We study four benchmark cases that show how isoAdvection affects the simulation results and expose its relative strengths and weaknesses in different scenarios. Comparisons are made with VOF employing the Multidimensional Universal Limiter for Explicit Solution (MULES) limiter and analytical data and experimental correlations. The impact of nanoparticles on the base fluid are considered using empirical equations from the literature. The benchmark cases are 1D and 2D boiling and condensation problems. Their results show that isoAdvection (with isoAlpha reconstruct scheme) delivers a faster solution than MULES while maintaining nearly the same accuracy and convergence rate in the majority of thermal phase change scenarios.

Level-Set Interface Description Approach for Thermal Phase Change of Nanofluids

“…Furthermore, nanofluids can be used to improve heat transfer in industrial applications, which was proved to be a very successful technique by Choi and Eastman [4] for the first time. Following that, several researchers began to investigate various aspects of employing nanofluids in cooling applications both experimentally [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and numerically [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”