Volume of Fluid (VOF) type advection methods in two-phase flow: A comparative study

Abstract

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.

Numerical simulation of two-phase flows in complex geometries by using the volume-of-fluid/immersed-boundary method

“…To this end, several varieties of the VOF algorithm have been proposed, see the comparative studies of (Aniszewski et al, 2014;Gopala and van Wachem, 2008). The VOF method has good properties of volume conservation, but it is difficult to exactly locate the interfacial point and compute the surface tension.…”

Comparison between the diffuse interface and volume of fluid methods for simulating two-phase flows

“…Moreover, surface tension implementations have been compared in articles such as [41] and [50]. However, studies like [51] and [52], where the relative performance of two full two-phase solvers are compared, are scarce. In [51], the number of test cases were limited and the selected methods were quite similar.…”

Improved THINC/SW scheme for computing incompressible two‐phase flows

“…A more sophisticated scheme, THINC with Slope Weighting (THINC/SW), in which the interface jump is scaled to a proper thickness according to the interface orientation is proposed in recent years. The THINC/SW scheme is extremely simple and its numerical accuracy is comparable to the classical geometrical VOF methods . More recently, some advanced variants of THINC schemes have been developed, including multidimensional THINC reconstructions in Cartesian grid and unstructured grids in both 2D and 3D .…”

“…It is noted that the presented numerical framework uses the THINC/SW scheme to capture the moving interface and the cogenerated LS field is used to ameliorate THINC/SW results and facilitate numerical simulations of surface tension, which makes it differ from the work of Aniszewski et al We demonstrated the accuracy and robustness of the new scheme on application to advection tests and multifluid simulations. Numerical results show that the new scheme is more accurate than the original THINC/SW scheme and provides a promising and applicable approach to solve a wide range of incompressible two‐phase flows.…”

“…The THINC/SW scheme is extremely simple and its numerical accuracy is comparable to the classical geometrical VOF methods. 26,27 More recently, some advanced variants of THINC schemes have been developed, including multidimensional THINC reconstructions in Cartesian grid and unstructured grids in both 2D and 3D. [28][29][30][31] These schemes show superior geometrically faithfulness of interface reconstruction, but the algorithm complexity and computational efficiency are not as satisfactory as the THINC/SW scheme.…”