Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Implementation of contact angles in the pseudopotential lattice Boltzmann simulations with curved boundaries

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes an improved virtual-density scheme that replaces the constant virtual wall density in pseudopotential lattice Boltzmann simulations with a locally averaged virtual density, eliminating the unphysical thick mass-transfer…

desk verdict A solid, incremental contribution to pseudopotential LB contact-angle modeling; the local virtual-density idea is genuinely new and clearly explained, but the paper leaves a real gap at very high contact angles where the improved scheme may quietly revert to the behavior it claims to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04443 v3 pith:YLNKCLPD submitted 2019-08-13 physics.comp-ph physics.flu-dyn

Q. Li , Y. Yu , Kai H. Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn PACS 47.11.-j
keywords pseudopotentiallatticeBoltzmanncontactanglecurvedboundariesvirtualdensitymass-transferlayerspuriouscurrentsmultiphaseflowwetting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tackles a practical obstacle in pseudopotential lattice Boltzmann simulations of multiphase flow: imposing a contact angle on a curved solid boundary without creating artifacts. It shows that the usual constant-virtual-density scheme produces a thick unphysical mass-transfer layer near the wall, while the solid-fluid interaction scheme produces much larger spurious currents. The proposed fix is an improved virtual-density scheme in which each solid node gets a virtual density obtained as a weighted average of neighboring fluid densities, multiplied or shifted by one scalar to tune the angle (Eqs. 16 and 17). On cylindrical and spherical surfaces the scheme reproduces static and dynamic wetting, removes the mass-transfer layer, keeps maximum spurious currents below 0.006, and remains simple to implement in two and three dimensions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the local virtual density $\rho_{\mathrm{ave}}(\mathbf{x})$ defined by Eq. (17): at each solid lattice point, the density assigned to the solid phase is a weighted average over neighboring fluid nodes, using the same weights as the pseudopotential interaction force. This local value is then scaled by $\varphi$ or reduced by $\Delta\rho$ through Eq. (16) to set the contact angle, and clipped to the liquid-gas density range. The local averaging is the mechanism that carries the argument: it makes the solid's pseudopotential respond to the local fluid distribution, so the boundary does not impose the artificial density jump that produces the mass-transfer layer, while the scheme keeps the simplicity and low spurious currents of the original virtual-density treatment.

What would settle it

Fix one value of $\varphi$ (or $\Delta\rho$), lattice resolution, and equation of state, and measure the static contact angle on cylindrical or spherical surfaces of several radii; if the angle drifts systematically with curvature, or a concave boundary redevelops a density layer thicker than one or two lattices near the wall, the local-average premise is insufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the thick mass-transfer layer seen with the virtual-density scheme comes from using a constant virtual density $\rho_w$ in the solid, and that replacing it with a local virtual density $\rho_w(\mathbf{x})$ built from the weighted average $\rho_{\mathrm{ave}}(\mathbf{x})$ of neighboring fluid densities removes the layer. The proposed update is Eq. (16): for decreasing contact angle, $\rho_w(\mathbf{x})=\varphi\rho_{\mathrm{ave}}(\mathbf{x})$ with $\varphi\ge 1$; for increasing contact angle, $\rho_w(\mathbf{x})=\rho_{\mathrm{ave}}(\mathbf{x})-\Delta\rho$ with $\Delta\rho\ge 0$, then the value is clipped to $[\rho_g,\rho_l]$. With $\varphi=1$ or $\Delta\rho=0$ the scheme reduces to the standard near-90-degree case. The paper validates the scheme with static contact angles on a circular cylinder and on a sphere, shows density profiles where the original scheme's layer is about four lattices thick and the improved one has no comparable layer, and reports maximum spurious currents below 0.006 for the virtual-density-based schemes versus about 0.1 for the solid-fluid interaction scheme. In a droplet-impact test at Reynolds number 600 and a 60-degree contact angle, the improved scheme matches the geometric-formulation scheme, which the paper also extends to curved pseudopotential boundaries but notes is complicated and not directly usable in three dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single scalar multiplier or offset applied to a weighted local average of neighboring fluid densities, Eqs. (16) and (17), is enough to represent the wetting condition at every point of a curved solid boundary, so the same parameter gives the same contact angle regardless of local curvature and surrounding flow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pseudopotential lattice Boltzmann simulations can impose contact angles on curved solids with a one-parameter local-density formula and without the thick mass-transfer layer near the boundary.
  • The scheme works in three dimensions on a spherical surface, whereas the curved geometric-formulation scheme cannot be applied directly in three dimensions.
  • Maximum spurious currents stay below 0.006 for the improved scheme, roughly two orders of magnitude below the order-0.1 values of the solid-fluid interaction scheme.
  • In a droplet-impact test at Reynolds number 600 and a 60-degree contact angle, the improved scheme agrees with the geometric-formulation scheme, showing that removing the mass layer restores agreement for dynamic wetting.
  • Because the improved scheme keeps the interaction-force structure of the original virtual-density scheme, it preserves ease of implementation and remains compatible with the thermodynamic-consistency forcing used by the model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same local-average prescription could plausibly cure the fictitious-density mass-transfer artifact reported in color-gradient multiphase lattice Boltzmann schemes, since the mechanism of a constant wall density is common to both.
  • Because the improved scheme only averages neighboring fluid densities with fixed weights, it should transfer naturally to moving or deformable solid boundaries, where the curved geometric-formulation scheme becomes impractical.
  • The mapping from $\varphi$ or $\Delta\rho$ to the contact angle is demonstrated on one cylinder and one sphere; a systematic sweep over surface curvature would show whether the mapping is universal or needs recalibration.
  • The heuristic scalar in Eq. (16) invites a derivation from a local force balance or Young's-law argument that would turn a calibrated parameter into a predictive one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates contact-angle implementation in pseudopotential lattice Boltzmann simulations with curved boundaries. It compares four schemes: the solid-fluid interaction scheme, the constant virtual-density scheme, a curved geometric-formulation scheme extended from the phase-field method, and a newly proposed improved virtual-density scheme. In the improved scheme, Eqs. (16)-(17), the virtual density at a solid point is obtained from a weighted average of neighboring fluid densities, multiplied by a factor phi or reduced by an offset DeltaRho, so that the virtual density is local rather than constant. The paper claims this improved scheme removes the thick mass-transfer layer produced by the constant virtual-density scheme while retaining its simplicity and low spurious currents. Validation is provided through static contact-angle tests on a cylindrical surface (Figs. 4-8), spurious-current comparisons (Figs. 9-10), density extrema comparisons (Fig. 11), Poiseuille flow between parallel plates (Fig. 12), droplet impact on a cylinder (Fig. 13), and static contact angles on a spherical surface in 3D (Fig. 14). The central claim is that the improved scheme is a simple, low-artifact contact-angle treatment that works in both 2D and 3D curved geometries.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a practically useful contribution to the pseudopotential LB community: it offers a simple local virtual-density formula that cures the mass-transfer-layer artifact of the standard virtual-density scheme without the implementation complexity of the geometric-formulation scheme and with much smaller spurious currents than the solid-fluid interaction scheme. The paper contains several direct quantitative comparisons that support the central claim, including density profiles showing the mass-transfer layer (Fig. 7), maximum spurious currents across a range of contact angles (Fig. 10), a Poiseuille-flow benchmark against the analytical solution (Fig. 12), and a 3D demonstration on a spherical surface (Fig. 14). The manuscript is clearly written and the numerical tests are reproducible from the description, although no code is provided. The main weakness is that the absence of the mass-transfer layer is not demonstrated with density diagnostics at high contact angles, where the improved scheme's local virtual density can degenerate to a constant value in uniform density regions, potentially reproducing the artifact it claims to eliminate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Fig. 12] The Poiseuille-flow test shows that the improved virtual-density scheme matches the analytical solution for theta = 158 degrees, but no density profiles normal to the wall are reported for this high-contact-angle case. Because the mass-transfer layer is a density artifact, a velocity profile that matches the analytical solution is only indirect evidence of its absence: a thin low-density wall layer can in principle leave the bulk velocity nearly parabolic. The authors should provide density profiles for the improved scheme at theta around 145-158 degrees, for both the flat channel and the curved cylinder, to directly demonstrate the absence of the mass-transfer layer in the high-theta regime.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (16)] In a region where the fluid density is uniform, rho_ave in Eq. (17) is constant, so the improved virtual density rho_w = rho_ave - DeltaRho in Eq. (16) reduces to a constant value. For large positive contact angles, DeltaRho is large enough that rho_w approaches rho_g, which is exactly the condition under which the original virtual-density scheme produces the four-lattice mass-transfer layer shown in Fig. 7. The paper offers no mechanistic explanation for why the improved scheme suppresses the layer in this limiting case. The authors should either provide an analysis of this degeneracy or present numerical evidence (e.g., density profiles) showing that the local averaging prevents the artifact even when rho_w is effectively constant and close to rho_g.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Figs. 5 and 7] The density-profile comparison in Fig. 7 covers only the improved scheme at theta approximately 34 and 125 degrees. The claim that the improved scheme 'does not suffer from a thick mass-transfer layer' is thereby established only for moderate contact angles. The high-contact-angle regime on a curved boundary, which is where the original scheme behaves worst, is not assessed with density diagnostics. The 3D test in Fig. 14(c) reaches theta approximately 145 degrees but shows only density contours, not a quantitative profile. The central claim of the abstract should be supported by density profiles for the improved scheme at high contact angles on the cylindrical surface.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (16)] The phrases 'for decreasing' and 'for increasing' in Eq. (16) are ambiguous; they should be clarified as decreasing or increasing the contact angle relative to 90 degrees, and the sign convention should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Captions of Figs. 4, 5, 6, 8, and 14] The contact angles are reported as approximate values, but no description is given of how they are measured from the simulation results. A brief statement of the measurement procedure (e.g., fitting the interface to a circle and measuring the tangent angle) would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, relative error definition] The relative error E_r for the Poiseuille flow is introduced in the text but the equation appears garbled in the typeset version; it should be presented in a clearly formatted equation.
  4. [Sec. IV.A, Fig. 10] The spurious-current comparison is made at contact angles that are only approximately matched across schemes (e.g., 119-125 degrees in Fig. 9). The authors should state whether the small differences in the target angle affect the quantitative comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proposed scheme is benchmarked against the analytical Poiseuille solution and against existing contact-angle schemes; the tuned constants are implementation parameters, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central claim is that the improved virtual-density scheme (Eqs. (16)-(17)) removes the thick mass-transfer layer while retaining simplicity and low spurious currents. This claim is supported by independent numerical tests: the density profiles in Fig. 7 compare the three schemes, the velocity profiles in Fig. 12 are checked against the analytical Poiseuille solution, and the spurious-current comparison in Fig. 10 is an external diagnostic. The constants phi and DeltaRho are not treated as predictions of the contact angle; the paper states that different contact angles can be realized by tuning them, and the resulting angles are read from the simulations. The geometric-formulation extension from Liu and Ding [26] is clearly attributed to prior work and is used as a comparison scheme, not as the source of the improved scheme's validity. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [24,25,28,33,47]) concern baseline forcing schemes, flat-surface contact-angle implementations, the D3Q19 MRT model, and known curved-boundary mass leakage; none of these is invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem or as the sole support for the main result. Therefore no step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scheme rests on two tuning constants and on four modeling assumptions about the equation of state, the forcing scheme, the curved boundary treatment, and the ad hoc local virtual-density formula. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main cost is calibration: the relation between phi and DeltaRho and the contact angle is empirical.

free parameters (2)
  • phi = 1.4 (theta ~ 34 deg), 1.135 (theta ~ 60 deg), 1.2 (theta ~ 53 deg), 1.0 (theta ~ 88-90 deg)
    Eq. (16) multiplier for decreasing contact angles; tuned per target angle, with no predictive mapping given.
  • DeltaRho = 0.5 (theta ~ 125 deg), 0.55 (theta ~ 145 deg)
    Eq. (16) subtraction for increasing contact angles; tuned per target angle, with no predictive mapping given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Peng-Robinson equation of state with omega = 0.344 and T = 0.86 T_c yields the stated coexisting densities rho_g ~ 0.38 and rho_l ~ 6.5.
    Used in Sec. IV for all simulations; the study does not test sensitivity to the equation of state or reduced temperature.
  • domain assumption The MRT forcing scheme of Ref. [28] achieves thermodynamic consistency for the pseudopotential model.
    Invoked in Sec. II A, Eq. (7); the improved contact-angle scheme is built on this baseline model.
  • domain assumption The halfway bounce-back scheme adequately represents curved solid walls for the tested flows.
    Sec. IV uses halfway bounce-back; Sec. V notes that more accurate curved schemes can suffer mass leakage in two-phase simulations.
  • ad hoc to paper The local virtual-density formula, Eqs. (16)-(17), is an appropriate representation of wetting on arbitrary curved boundaries.
    Proposed without derivation; its validity is established only by the specific cylinder and sphere tests in Sec. IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implementation of contact angles in the pseudopotential lattice Boltzmann simulations with curved boundaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YLNKCLPD

@misc{pith2026190804443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implementation of contact angles in the pseudopotential lattice Boltzmann simulations with curved boundaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YLNKCLPD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04443}
}
read the original abstract

The pseudopotential multiphase lattice Boltzmann (LB) model is a very popular model in the LB community for simulating multiphase flows. When the multiphase modeling involves a solid boundary, a numerical scheme is required to simulate the contact angle at the solid boundary. In this work, we aim at investigating the implementation of contact angles in the pseudopotential LB simulations with curved boundaries. In the pseudopotential LB model, the contact angle is usually realized by employing a solid-fluid interaction or specifying a constant virtual wall density. However, it is shown that the solid-fluid interaction scheme yields very large spurious currents in the simulations involving curved boundaries, while the virtual-density scheme produces an unphysical thick mass-transfer layer near the solid boundary although it gives much smaller spurious currents. We also extend the geometric-formulation scheme in the phase-field method to the pseudopotential LB model. Nevertheless, in comparison with the solid-fluid interaction scheme and the virtual-density scheme, the geometric-formulation scheme is relatively difficult to implement for curved boundaries and cannot be directly applied to three-dimensional space. By analyzing the features of these three schemes, we propose an improved virtual-density scheme to implement contact angles in the pseudopotential LB simulations with curved boundaries, which does not suffer from a thick mass-transfer layer near the solid boundary and retains the advantages of the original virtual-density scheme, i.e., simplicity, easiness for implementation, and low spurious currents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04443 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Moreover, it is clearly seen that the improved virtual-density scheme performs much better than [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chen and G

    S. Chen and G. D. Doolen, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 30, 329 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    C. K. Aidun and J. R. Clausen, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 42, 439 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Q. Li, K. H. Luo, Q. J. Kang, Y . L. He, Q. Chen, and Q. Liu, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 52, 62 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    A. Xu, W. Shyy, and T. Zhao, Acta Mechanica Sinica 33, 555 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Succi, Europhysics Letters 109, 50001 (2015)

    S. Succi, Europhysics Letters 109, 50001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Guo and C

    Z. Guo and C. Shu, Lattice Boltzmann Method and Its Applications in Engineering (World Scientific, 2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Huang, M

    H. Huang, M. Sukop, and X. Lu, Multiphase lattice Boltzmann methods: Theory and application (John Wiley & Sons, 2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Krüger, H

    T. Krüger, H. Kusumaatmaja, A. Kuzmin, O. Shardt, G. Silva, and E. M. Viggen, The Lattice Boltzmann Method - Principles and Practice (Springer Nature, 2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Shan and H

    X. Shan and H. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 47, 1815 (1993)

    1993

  2. [10]

    Shan and H

    X. Shan and H. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 49, 2941 (1994)

    1994

  3. [11]

    Shan, Phys

    X. Shan, Phys. Rev. E 77, 066702 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    N. S. Martys and H. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 53, 743 (1996)

    1996

  5. [13]

    Raiskinmäki, A

    P. Raiskinmäki, A. Koponen, J. Merikoski, and J. Timonen, Computational Materials Science 18, 7 (2000)

    2000

  6. [14]

    Raiskinmäki, A

    P. Raiskinmäki, A. Shakib-Manesh, A. Jäsberg, A. Koponen, J. Merikoski, and J. Timonen, Journal of Statistical Physics 107, 143 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Q. Kang, D. Zhang, and S. Chen, Phys. Fluids 14, 3203 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Q. Kang, D. Zhang, and S. Chen, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 545, 41 (2005). 25

    2005

  9. [17]

    C. E. Colosqui, M. E. Kavousanakis, A. G. Papathanasiou, and I. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. E 87, 013302 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Benzi, L

    R. Benzi, L. Biferale, M. Sbragaglia, S. Succi, and F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. E 74, 021509 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Latva-Kokko and D

    M. Latva-Kokko and D. H. Rothman, Phys. Rev. E 72, 046701 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    T. Akai, B. Bijeljic, and M. J. Blunt, Advances in Water Resources 116, 56 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Huang, Z

    H. Huang, Z. Li, S. Liu, and X.-y. Lu, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 61, 341 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Huang, D

    H. Huang, D. T. Thorne, M. G. Schaap, and M. C. Sukop, Phys. Rev. E 76, 066701 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Ding and P

    H. Ding and P. D. M. Spelt, Phys. Rev. E 75, 046708 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Q. Li, P. Zhou, and H. J. Yan, Langmuir 32, 9389 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Y . Yu, Q. Li, C. Q. Zhou, P. Zhou, and H. J. Yan, Applied Thermal Engineering 127, 1346 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Liu and H

    H.-R. Liu and H. Ding, Journal of Computational Physics 294, 484 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    K. N. Premnath and J. Abraham, Journal of Computational Physics 224, 539 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Q. Li, K. H. Luo, and X. J. Li, Phys. Rev. E 87, 053301 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    d'Humières, I

    D. d'Humières, I. Ginzburg, M. Krafczyk, P. Lallemand, and L. S. Luo, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 360, 437 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    M. E. McCracken and J. Abraham, Phys. Rev. E 71, 036701 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    L.-S. Luo, W. Liao, X. Chen, Y . Peng, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E 83, 056710 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    A. Xu, T. S. Zhao, L. An, and L. Shi, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 56, 261 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Q. Li, D. H. Du, L. L. Fei, and K. H. Luo, Computers & Fluids 186, 128 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Lallemand and L.-S

    P. Lallemand and L.-S. Luo, Phys. Rev. E 61, 6546 (2000)

    2000

  27. [35]

    Yuan and L

    P. Yuan and L. Schaefer, Phys. Fluids 18, 042101 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Huang, M

    H. Huang, M. Krafczyk, and X. Lu, Phys. Rev. E 84, 046710 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Q. Li, K. H. Luo, and X. J. Li, Phys. Rev. E 86, 016709 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Sbragaglia, R

    M. Sbragaglia, R. Benzi, L. Biferale, S. Succi, K. Sugiyama, and F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. E 75, 026702 (2007). 26

    2007

  31. [39]

    Zhang, K

    D. Zhang, K. Papadikis, and S. Gu, International Journal of Multiphase Flow 64, 11 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Q. Li, K. H. Luo, Q. J. Kang, and Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 90, 053301 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Z. Xu, H. Liu, and A. J. Valocchi, Water Resources Research 53 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Q. Li, Q. J. Kang, M. M. Francois, Y . L. He, and K. H. Luo, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 85, 787 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    A. J. C. Ladd, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 271, 285 (1994)

    1994

  36. [44]

    Mei, L.-S

    R. Mei, L.-S. Luo, and W. Shyy, Journal of Computational Physics 155, 307 (1999)

    1999

  37. [45]

    M. H. Bouzidi, M. Firdaouss, and P. Lallemand, Phys. Fluids 13, 3452 (2001)

    2001

  38. [46]

    Zhao and W.-A

    W. Zhao and W.-A. Yong, Journal of Computational Physics 329, 1 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Y . Yu, Q. Li, and Z. X. Wen, arXiv: 1908.09235, (2019)

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.