Computing Compressible Two-Component Flow Systems Using Diffuse Interface Method

  • A. Ballil
  • S. A. Jolgam
  • A. F. Nowakowski
  • F. C. G. A. Nicolleau
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 229)


Numerical simulation of compressible two-component flows that consider different materials and physical properties is conducted. An explicit finite volume numerical framework based on an extended second order Godunov approach is developed and implemented to solve an Eulerian type mathematical model. This model consists of five partial differential equations in one space dimension and it is known as the transport reduced model. A fixed Eulerian mesh is considered and the hyperbolic problem is tackled using a robust and efficient HLL Riemann solver. The performance of the numerical solver is verified against a comprehensive suite of numerical and experimental case studies in multi-dimensional space. Computing the evolution of interfaces between two immiscible fluids is considered as a major challenge for the present model and the numerical technique. The achieved numerical results demonstrate a very good agreement with all reference data.


Compressible multi-component flows Godunov approach  HLL Riemann solver Interface evolution Shock wave  Shock bubble interaction 


  1. 1.
    Lindl JD, McCrory RL, Campbell EM (1992) Progress toward ignition and burn propagation in inertial confinement fusion. Phys Today 45(9):32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nowakowski A, Librovich B, Lue L (2004) Reactor safety analysis based on a developed two-phase compressible flow simulation. In: Proceedings of the 7th Biennial conference on engineering systems design and analysis, ESDA 2004, Manchester, U.K, 19–22 July 2004, vol 1, pp 929–936Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saurel R, Abgrall R (1999) A multiphase Godunov method for compressible multifluid and multiphase flows. J Comput Phys 150(2):425–467MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allaire G, Clerc S, Kokh S (2000) A five-equation model for the numerical simulation of interfaces in two-phase flows, C. R. Acad Sci—Series I: Mathematics 331(12):1017–1022Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murrone A, Guillard H (2005) A five-equation model for the simulation of interfaces between compressible fluids. J Comput Phys 202(2):664–698MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kapila AK, Menikoff R, Bdzil JB, Son SF, Stewart DS (2001) Two-phase modeling of deflagration to detonation transition in granular materials: reduced equations. Phys Fluids 13(10):3002–3024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allaire G, Clerc S, Kokh S (2002) A five-equation model for the simulation of interfaces between compressible fluids. J Comput Phys 181(2):577–616MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ballil A, Jolgam S, Nowakowski AF, Nicoleau FCGA (2012) Numerical simulation of compressible two-phase flows using an Eulerian type reduced model. In: Proceedings of the world congress on engineering WCE 2012. Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science. U.K, London, 4–6 July 2012, pp 1835–1840Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haas JF, Sturtevant B (1987) Interaction of weak shock waves with cylindrical and spherical gas inhomogeneities. J Fluid Mech 181:41–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Layes G, Jourdan G, Houas L (2003) Distortion of a spherical gaseous interface accelerated by a plane shock wave. Phys Rev Lett 91(17):174502Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Layes G, Le Métayer O (2007) Quantitative numerical and experimental studies of the shock accelerated heterogeneous bubbles motion. Phys Fluids 19:042105Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coquel F, Amine KE, Godlewski E, Perthame B, Rascle P (1997) A numerical method using upwind schemes for the resolution of two-phase flows. J Comput Phys 136:272–288MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bagabir A, Drikakis D (2001) Mach number effects on shock-bubble interaction. Shock Waves 11(3):209–218MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu X, Khoo B (2004) An interface interaction method for compressible multifluids. J Comput Phys 198:35–64MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Terashima H, Tryggvason G (2010) A front-tracking method with projected interface conditions for compressible multi-fluid flows. Comput Fluids 39:1804–1814MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shukla RK, Pantano C, Freund JB (2010) An interface capturing method for the simulation of multi-phase compressible flows. J Comput Phys 229:7411–7439MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harten A, Lax PD, Leer BV (1983) On upstream \(\text{ di }\_\text{ erencing }\) and Godunov-type schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM Review 25(1):35–61Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toro E (1999) Riemann solvers and numerical methods for fluid dynamics. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shyue K (1998) An efficient shock-capturing algorithm for compressible multi-component problems. J Comput Phys 142(1):208–242MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Ballil
    • 1
  • S. A. Jolgam
    • 1
  • A. F. Nowakowski
    • 1
  • F. C. G. A. Nicolleau
    • 1
  1. 1.Sheffield Fluid Mechanics Group, Mechanical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations