A comparison between the surface compression method and an interface reconstruction method for the VOF approach

Abstract

DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

Using computational fluid dynamics to describe H2S mass transfer across the water–air interface in sewers

“…Since the relative velocity cannot be computed directly from the one-fluid formulation in OpenFOAM, the numerical implementation of the relative velocity is as follows (Cifani et al, 2016):…”

DNS of turbulent bubble-laden channel flows

“…For all grids adopted here, including the coarsest of 10 × 20 we notice a clear correspondence with second order convergence as shown by the dashed line. This second order convergence is clearly superior to the convergence rate established in [41], without having to resort to any additional smoothing of the near-interface region. The GHF method is computationally more involved than more basic finite difference approaches.…”

“…This case was extensively discussed in the previous Chapter and also published in [41]. The most direct assessment of the method is obtained from a grid refinement study in which the accuracy is directly related to the required computational effort.…”

“…The most direct assessment of the method is obtained from a grid refinement study in which the accuracy is directly related to the required computational effort. In Figure 3.4 predicted bubble shapes for flow conditions as also adopted in [41] are compared with the reference provided by [62]. The simulations were initialised from a bubble of circular shape which gradually develops into the presented shapes.…”

“…Subsequently, an estimation of the fluxes is possible via purely geometrical considerations basically moving interface segments with a velocity that is computed locally. This method has been shown to converge to second order accuracy with grid refinement [38][39][40][41] and it delivers a sharp interface by construction. The complexity introduced by the geometrical VOF method results in a higher computational cost compared to high-order discretisation schemes, but this is outweighed by its higher accuracy resulting in a more efficient algorithm [41].…”