Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Thermal transport characteristics of impinging ferrofluid droplets in the presence of a magnetic field

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetic field can turn a ferrofluid droplet into a controllable cooling agent, boosting wall heat transfer by up to about 170%.

desk verdict Qualitative story credible, but headline heat-transfer numbers are internally inconsistent and the 20 ms averaging window likely inflates the magnetic-field benefit. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20284 v2 pith:IPH5MU6K submitted 2025-06-25 physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.soft

Ram Krishna Shah , Saptarshi Mandal This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyncond-mat.soft PACS 47.55.D47.65.Cb
keywords ferrofluiddropletimpingementmagneticfieldmaximumspreadingdiameterphase-fieldmethodheattransferenhancementwallshearstressthermalmanagementswitch
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

This paper sets out to show that a magnetic field can do more than pull a ferrofluid droplet: it can actively control how the droplet spreads on a heated surface and how much heat it removes. By simulating ferrofluid droplet impact with and without a magnetic field from a small permanent magnet, the authors find that the magnetic body force increases the maximum spreading diameter, suppresses rebound on hydrophobic surfaces, and extends the droplet's contact with the wall. The result is a large rise in wall heat transfer, roughly 75–170% depending on Weber number and contact angle, with the biggest gains at low Weber numbers and hydrophobic surfaces. This matters because it points toward magnetically switchable droplet cooling and thermal-management devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic Kelvin body force $\mathbf{f}_k = \mu_0(\mathbf{M}\cdot\nabla)\mathbf{H}$, where $\mathbf{M}$ follows the equilibrium Langevin magnetization law and $\mathbf{H}$ comes from a magnetostatic solve of a finite permanent magnet. This force is inserted into the momentum equation alongside the phase-field (diffuse-interface) Cahn–Hilliard interface model, and it is what stretches the droplet, suppresses recoil, and steepens the near-wall velocity gradients. The proposed maximum-spreading correlation packages the effect into a tuning formula for engineering use.

What would settle it

Measure, in a single experiment, the impact of a ferrofluid droplet with diameter around 2 mm at Weber number 10 on a heated hydrophobic surface with contact angle near 120° and a permanent magnet producing a peak field near 0.23 T beneath the surface; if the droplet still rebounds, or if maximum spreading and time-averaged heat flux do not increase by roughly the predicted tens of percent over the no-field case, then the equilibrium-Langevin magnetic-force model is not capturing the spreading phase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an externally applied non-uniform magnetic field changes droplet impingement from an inertia-and-capillary controlled process into one dominated by the magnetic (Kelvin) body force. With the equilibrium Langevin magnetization model, the force pulls the ferrofluid toward the high-field region near the substrate, increasing maximum spreading (up to about 35–40%, with the largest change at We=10 and θe=120°), suppressing bounce-off that otherwise occurs on hydrophobic surfaces at We=20, and lengthening contact time. The same force steepens the velocity gradient at the wall, raising wall shear stress by up to about 200% in the We=10, θe=120° case and contributing to heat-transfer enhancements of roughly 75–170%, largest at We=10, θe=120° and smallest at We=30, θe=45°. The paper also proposes a linear correlation, $\beta_{max}N_m^{-1} = 1.056(\beta_0 N_m^{-1}) + 0.002$, to predict maximum spreading under a magnetic field from the no-field maximum spreading.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the ferrofluid behaves as a single ordinary liquid whose magnetization is always in instant equilibrium with the magnetic field during the millisecond impact; if the magnetization lags or particle-level stresses matter, the predicted spreading and heat-transfer gains would not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On hydrophobic and superhydrophobic surfaces, an applied magnetic field can suppress droplet rebound, so surfaces that normally shed droplets become usable for cooling.
  • Heat-transfer gains are largest when inertia is weak (low Weber number) and the surface is hydrophobic; at high Weber number and hydrophilic surfaces the field matters less.
  • Wall shear stress rises sharply with the field, implying that magnetic control can enhance convective transport at the wall, not just contact area.
  • Maximum spreading under a magnetic field can be predicted from the no-field maximum spreading using a simple linear relation containing the magnetic parameter $N_m$.
  • When the magnetic force is strong, spreading and heat transfer become nearly independent of Weber number, meaning the field, rather than impact speed, sets the thermal outcome.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equilibrium-magnetization assumption is the reason for the gains, faster impacts or larger nanoparticles, where magnetization relaxation is no longer negligible, should show smaller or delayed spreading enhancement; this is a testable boundary of the claim.
  • The near-elimination of Weber-number dependence under a strong field suggests a spray-cooling system could be made robust to droplet-speed variations by holding the field fixed, an implication the paper does not develop.
  • The correlation is fit to one set of simulations and checked against one experimental dataset, so a broader experimental sweep of field strength, Weber number, and contact angle would reveal whether the linear form and fitted constants generalize.
  • The proposed mechanism also implies that pulsing the magnetic field during the receding phase could extend contact time even further, since the force acts in the spreading direction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a phase-field computational study of ferrofluid droplet impingement on heated solid surfaces, with and without a magnetic field produced by a finite-size permanent magnet. Using a coupled mass, momentum, energy, and Cahn–Hilliard phase-field formulation, the authors investigate the effects of Weber number (10–30) and equilibrium contact angle (45°–120°) on spreading dynamics, wall shear stress, and wall heat transfer. The central claims are that the magnetic field increases the maximum spreading diameter by up to 35–40%, suppresses rebound on hydrophobic surfaces, extends contact time, and improves heat transfer by 75–170% depending on the case. A correlation for maximum spreading under a magnetic field is also proposed and compared with one experimental point from Benther et al. The work is motivated by potential thermal-switch and thermal-management applications.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are reproducible, the paper provides a numerical demonstration that magnetic fields can actively control droplet–surface heat transfer, which is a useful step toward thermal-switch applications. The paper has clear strengths: it uses a physically motivated phase-field framework, models the magnetic field from a finite-size magnet rather than a uniform field, and compares morphological evolution, heat transfer, and wall shear stress across multiple Weber numbers and contact angles. However, the quantitative foundation is currently incomplete. The heat-transfer enhancement numbers are inconsistent across the Abstract, Section 3.3, and Summary; the 20 ms time-averaging window is not justified and is biased by rebound behavior in the no-field baseline; and no validation is provided for the ferrofluid/magnetic cases themselves. These issues must be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.3; Summary and Conclusions] The headline quantitative claims are not internally consistent. The Abstract states 'up to 150% improvement in heat transfer' and 'up to 35%' increase in maximum spreading; Section 3.3 reports 'a maximum enhancement of about 170% for the We = 10 and θe = 120° case' and a maximum change in βmax of 'around 40% at We = 10, θe = 120°'; the Summary states 'a maximum enhancement of about 75% in average heat transfer ... at a Weber number of 30 and a contact angle of 120°.' The reader cannot determine which number corresponds to which definition or case. Please define the heat-transfer enhancement metric precisely (for example, percentage change in time-averaged wall heat flux over a stated window) and report one consistent set of values.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 4(d); Section 3.3, Figure 6(a)] The time-averaged wall heat transfer is computed over a fixed 20 ms window, but in the no-field hydrophobic cases the droplet rebounds and detaches at about 15 ms, so zero heat flux is included for the remaining 5 ms. This fixed-window convention systematically inflates the enhancement for magnetic-field cases by counting detached periods as zero for the no-field baseline. Because the enhancement is the central claim, please report the averaging definition explicitly and reanalyze with alternative metrics (for example, total energy transferred during contact, or averaging only over the contact duration) to show that the claimed enhancement is not an artifact of the window choice.
  3. [Section 2, Eqs. (2)–(3); Section 3.1] The model is validated only for water droplet impact without a magnetic field; the ferrofluid magnetization model and the magnetic-field distribution are not validated in the present manuscript, with the authors referring to their previous works for the magnetic-field validation. Since the magnetic body force is the key driver of the claimed changes, please provide validation of the ferrofluid/magnetic case against experimental data (for example, spreading dynamics of ferrofluid droplets under nonuniform fields from Ahmed et al. or Li et al.) or quantify the sensitivity of the results to the assumed instantaneous equilibrium magnetization and to the neglected nanoparticle relaxation.
  4. [Section 3.1, Cn = 0.01] No mesh-independence study is reported; the Cn = 0.01 mesh is adopted based on water-droplet validation and then used for all ferrofluid/magnetic cases. Given that the magnetic body force is of order 10^5 and comparable to inertial forces, please demonstrate that the maximum spreading, rebound suppression, and heat-transfer enhancement are converged with respect to mesh resolution and that the phase-field mobility tuning parameter χ = 1 is appropriate for ferrofluid cases.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Figure 10(b)] The proposed correlation is fitted to the same simulation data that it is then used to predict, and the validation is a single experimental point from Benther et al. Please state the number of fitted points, the fit's coefficient of determination or uncertainty, and clarify that this is a calibration rather than an independent test.
  2. [References] The spelling of the reference is inconsistent: the text uses 'Benther et al.' in most places but 'Banthar et al.' near the end of Section 3.3; please standardize the spelling.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The notation in Eq. (2) is inconsistent: the Langevin function is written as L(a) with 'a' in the hyperbolic cotangent, while the dimensionless argument is defined as α; please unify the symbols.
  4. [Figure 9(d)] The text in Section 3.3 states that a maximum enhancement of about 170% is observed, but Figure 9(d) does not label percentage enhancements; please make the plotted quantity and the percentage changes readable directly from the figure or its caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central spreading and heat-transfer claims are direct simulation outputs, and the fitted beta_max correlation is checked against an independent experimental result.

full rationale

The load-bearing results (enhanced spreading, rebound suppression, and increased wall heat transfer under magnetic field) are obtained by solving the coupled Navier-Stokes, Cahn-Hilliard, and energy equations, not by reinserting a fitted quantity. The proposed beta_max correlation is explicitly a curve fit to the present simulation data ('Figure 10(b) shows a curve fit to the present data'), but the paper then validates the functional form against Benther et al.'s independent experiment (predicted ~2.45 vs observed ~2.50), so it is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction of the same data. The magnetic-field model is referenced to the authors' prior works [8,9,13] for 'modelling and validation,' which is a self-citation, but no present equation reduces to those works by construction, and the prior validation is asserted to exist. The fixed 20 ms averaging window and the internally inconsistent enhancement percentages (Abstract 'up to 150%', Section 3.3 '~170%', Summary '~75%') are reproducibility/correctness concerns about how the headline number is defined, not circular derivations. The model assumptions (equilibrium Langevin magnetization, chi=1, Cn=0.01 transferred from water validation) are physically fragile but are not circular.

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

The central simulation rests on a small set of tuned numerical and modeling choices: phase-field mobility set to 1, Cahn number 0.01, a 20 ms averaging window, and a two-parameter curve fit for the correlation. The physical model assumes equilibrium magnetization, no nanoparticle dynamics, and no phase change. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Phase-field mobility tuning parameter chi = 1
    Set to 1 in all simulations (Section 3.1). The phase-field mobility controls interface relaxation and contact line dynamics; it was not re-calibrated for ferrofluid, only inherited from water validation.
  • Time-averaging window = 20 ms
    Heat transfer is averaged over 20 ms. This window was chosen by the authors and includes post-rebound detached intervals for no-field hydrophobic cases, directly affecting reported percent enhancement.
  • Correlation coefficients a and b = a = 1.056, b = 0.002
    Linear curve fit to the simulated beta_max data in Figure 10(b); used in the proposed predictive correlation.
  • Cahn number Cn = 0.01
    Resolution parameter set following prior phase-field guidance; not fitted to target data, but chosen and not varied for ferrofluid cases.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ferrofluid is a pseudo-single-phase Newtonian liquid with equilibrium Langevin magnetization and no angular momentum coupling
    Section 2: magnetization relaxation ~1e-5 s is assumed faster than impact time ~1e-3 s, so M follows Eq. 2 instantaneously; this is load-bearing for the magnetic body force in Eq. 3.
  • domain assumption The phase-field model parameters (mobility chi=1, Cahn number 0.01) validated on water droplets transfer to ferrofluid droplets without recalibration
    Section 3.1: validation is for water droplet impingement only; the same Cn and chi are then used for all ferrofluid cases.
  • domain assumption No boiling, evaporation, or phase change occurs during impact; wall temperature 60 C is below boiling
    Section 2: multiphase flow modeled as incompressible, immiscible, non-boiling, with constant wall temperature; this excludes latent heat and vapor effects.
  • standard math Standard Cahn-Hilliard phase-field equations and Langevin magnetostatics from cited literature are applicable
    Equations 1-9 are adopted from prior phase-field and ferrofluid literature; no derivations are re-proved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal transport characteristics of impinging ferrofluid droplets in the presence of a magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPH5MU6K

@misc{pith2026250620284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal transport characteristics of impinging ferrofluid droplets in the presence of a magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPH5MU6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20284}
}
read the original abstract

Droplet interactions with solid surfaces are fundamental to natural phenomena and hold significant commercial relevance across diverse applications. While the impingement dynamics of conventional aqueous droplets on solid substrates are well-characterized, the behavior of non-aqueous droplets, particularly those influenced by external force fields like electric or magnetic fields, remains a less explored domain. This study addresses this gap by investigating the impact of a magnetic field on the impingement dynamics of ferrofluid droplets on a heated solid surface. Ferrofluids are unique colloidal suspensions of magnetic nanoparticles within a non-magnetic carrier fluid, enabling external manipulation of their dynamic properties through magnetic forces. The application of a magnetic field introduces an attractive force within the ferrofluid, fundamentally altering the droplet's spreading behavior and, consequently, its transport characteristics upon impact. Our findings reveal a substantial increase in both the maximum spreading diameter and the contact time between the droplet and the substrate, directly leading to enhanced thermal transport efficiency. Furthermore, the magnetic force effectively suppresses droplet bounce-off from hydrophobic surfaces. These critical parameters can be precisely controlled by adjusting the strength of the induced magnetic force. Such interactions can be used in the design of thermal switches and thermal management systems. The multi-physics interactions of magnetic fields, fluid flow, interface tracking, and heat transfer within the multiphase system are computationally modelled to examine the effect of Weber number and contact angle on maximum spreading and associated heat transfer characteristics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kim, Spray cooling heat transfer: The state of the art, Int J Heat Fluid Flow 28 (2007) 753–

    J. Kim, Spray cooling heat transfer: The state of the art, Int J Heat Fluid Flow 28 (2007) 753–

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Liang, I

    G. Liang, I. Mudawar, Review of spray cooling – Part 1: Single-phase and nucleate boiling regimes, and critical heat flux, Int J Heat Mass Transf 115 (2017) 1174–1205. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.06.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.06.029 2017

  3. [3]

    Jaiswal, S

    A.K. Jaiswal, S. Khandekar, Transient heat transfer during consecutive impact of two droplets on a heated substrate, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 193 (2023) 108546. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2023.108546

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Jaiswal, S

    A.K. Jaiswal, S. Khandekar, Drop-on-Drop Impact Dynamics on a Superhydrophobic Surface, Langmuir 37 (2021) 12629–12642. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c01779

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c01779 2021

  5. [5]

    Yarin, Drop impact dynamics: splashing, spreading, receding, bouncing…, Annu

    A.L. Yarin, Drop impact dynamics: splashing, spreading, receding, bouncing…, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 38 (2006) 159–192

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Josserand, S.T

    C. Josserand, S.T. Thoroddsen, Drop impact on a solid surface, Annu Rev Fluid Mech 48 (2016) 365–391

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Yang, H.-H

    R.-J. Yang, H.-H. Hou, Y .-N. Wang, L.-M. Fu, Micro-magnetofluidics in microfluidic systems: A review, Sens Actuators B Chem 224 (2016) 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2015.10.053

    work page doi:10.1016/j.snb.2015.10.053 2016

  8. [8]

    R.K. Shah, S. Khandekar, Manipulation of Taylor bubble flow in a magneto-fluidic system, Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 593 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2020.124589. 25

    work page arXiv 2020

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Shah, J.K

    R.K. Shah, J.K. Drave, S. Khandekar, Thermal Transport in Laminar Convective Flow of Ferrofluids in the Presence of External Magnetic Field, J Heat Transfer 143 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4050411

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    R.K. Shah, S. Khandekar, Influence of external magnetic manipulation on thermal transport characteristics of the bubble-slug flow of ferro-nanocolloids, Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 646 (2022) 128936. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2022.128936

    2022

  3. [11]

    Kole, R.K

    M. Kole, R.K. Shah, S. Khandekar, Energy efficient thermal management at low Reynolds number with air-ferrofluid Taylor bubble flows, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 135 (2022) 106109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2022.106109

    2022

  4. [12]

    R.K. Shah, S. Khandekar, On-demand augmentation in heat transfer of Taylor bubble flows using ferrofluids, Appl Therm Eng 205 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118058

    2022

  5. [13]

    R.K. Shah, S. Khandekar, Exploring ferrofluids for heat transfer augmentation, J Magn Magn Mater 475 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2018.11.034

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Timonen, M

    J.V.I. Timonen, M. Latikka, L. Leibler, R.H.A. Ras, O. Ikkala, Switchable static and dynamic self- assembly of magnetic droplets on superhydrophobic surfaces, Science (1979) 341 (2013) 253–

    1979

  7. [15]

    X. Liu, N. Kent, A. Ceballos, R. Streubel, Y . Jiang, Y . Chai, P .Y . Kim, J. Forth, F. Hellman, S. Shi, P . Fischer, T.P . Russell, Reconfigurable ferromagnetic liquid droplets, Science (1979) 365 (2019) 264–267. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw8719

    1979 doi

  8. [16]

    Lazarus, S.S

    N. Lazarus, S.S. Bedair, G.L. Smith, Creating 3D printed magnetic devices with ferrofluids and liquid metals, Addit Manuf 26 (2019) 15–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.12.012

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Ahmed, A.J

    A. Ahmed, A.J. Qureshi, B.A. Fleck, P .R. Waghmare, Effects of magnetic field on the spreading dynamics of an impinging ferrofluid droplet, J Colloid Interface Sci 532 (2018) 309–320. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2018.07.110

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Ahmed, B.A

    A. Ahmed, B.A. Fleck, P .R. Waghmare, Maximum spreading of a ferrofluid droplet under the effect of magnetic field, Physics of Fluids 30 (2018) 077102. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5032113

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    J. Zhou, D. Jing, Effects of vertical magnetic field on impact dynamics of ferrofluid droplet onto a rigid substrate, Phys Rev Fluids 4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.4.083602

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Hassan, C

    M.R. Hassan, C. Wang, Spreading Dynamics of an Impinging Ferrofluid Droplet on Hydrophilic Surfaces under Uniform Magnetic Fields, Langmuir 37 (2021) 13331–13345. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c01943

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Q.-P . Li, Y . Ouyang, X.-D. Niu, Y . Jiang, M.-F. Wen, Z.-Q. Li, M.-F. Chen, D.-C. Li, H. Yamaguchi, Maximum Spreading of Impacting Ferrofluid Droplets under the Effect of Nonuniform Magnetic Field, Langmuir 38 (2022) 2601–2607. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c03272. 26

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Huang, T.-Y

    J.-C. Huang, T.-Y . Han, J. Zhang, M.-J. Ni, Numerical Simulation of Maximum Spreading of an Impacting Ferrofluid Droplet under a Vertical Magnetic Field, Langmuir 40 (2024) 20859– 20871. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c01084

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Benther, B

    J.D. Benther, B. Wilson, P .A. Petrini, P . Lappas, G. Rosengarten, Ferrofluid droplet impingement cooling of modified surfaces under the influence of a magnetic field, Int J Heat Mass Transf 215 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2023.124370

    2023

  16. [24]

    Kim, Phase-Field Models for Multi-Component Fluid Flows, Commun Comput Phys 12 (2012) 613–661

    J. Kim, Phase-Field Models for Multi-Component Fluid Flows, Commun Comput Phys 12 (2012) 613–661. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.4208/cicp.301110.040811a

    2012

  17. [25]

    Santra, S

    S. Santra, S. Mandal, S. Chakraborty, Phase-field modeling of multicomponent and multiphase flows in microfluidic systems: a review, Int J Numer Methods Heat Fluid Flow 31 (2021) 3089–

    2021

  18. [26]

    Jacqmin, Contact-line dynamics of a diffuse fluid interface, J Fluid Mech 402 (2000) 57–88

    D. Jacqmin, Contact-line dynamics of a diffuse fluid interface, J Fluid Mech 402 (2000) 57–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112099006874

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    Jacqmin, Calculation of Two-Phase Navier–Stokes Flows Using Phase-Field Modeling, J Comput Phys 155 (1999) 96–127

    D. Jacqmin, Calculation of Two-Phase Navier–Stokes Flows Using Phase-Field Modeling, J Comput Phys 155 (1999) 96–127. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1999.6332

    1999

  20. [28]

    YUE, J.J

    P . YUE, J.J. FENG, C. LIU, J.I.E. SHEN, A diffuse-interface method for simulating two-phase flows of complex fluids, J Fluid Mech 515 (2004) 293–317. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0022112004000370

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    P . Yue, C. Zhou, J.J. Feng, Spontaneous shrinkage of drops and mass conservation in phase- field simulations, J Comput Phys 223 (2007) 1–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2006.11.020

    2007 doi

  22. [31]

    Ding, P .D.M

    H. Ding, P .D.M. Spelt, C. Shu, Diffuse interface model for incompressible two-phase flows with large density ratios, J Comput Phys 226 (2007) 2078–2095. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.06.028

    2007 doi

  23. [32]

    X. Cai, M. Wörner, H. Marschall, O. Deutschmann, Numerical study on the wettability dependent interaction of a rising bubble with a periodic open cellular structure, Catal Today 273 (2016) 151–160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2016.03.053

    2016 doi

  24. [33]

    X. Cai, M. Wörner, H. Marschall, O. Deutschmann, CFD Simulation of Liquid Back Suction and Gas Bubble Formation in a Circular Tube with Sudden or Gradual Expansion, Emission Control Science and Technology 3 (2017) 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40825-017-0073-3

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    F. Bai, X. He, X. Yang, R. Zhou, C. Wang, Three dimensional phase-field investigation of droplet formation in microfluidic flow focusing devices with experimental validation, International Journal of Multiphase Flow 93 (2017) 130–141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j....

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    P . Yue, C. Zhou, J.J. Feng, Sharp-interface limit of the Cahn-Hilliard model for moving contact lines, J Fluid Mech 645 (2010) 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112009992679. 27

    2010 doi

  27. [36]

    Samkhaniani, A

    N. Samkhaniani, A. Stroh, M. Holzinger, H. Marschall, B. Frohnapfel, M. Wörner, Bouncing drop impingement on heated hydrophobic surfaces, Int J Heat Mass Transf 180 (2021) 121777. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.121777

    2021

  28. [37]

    C. Guo, D. Maynes, J. Crockett, D. Zhao, Heat transfer to bouncing droplets on superhydrophobic surfaces, Int J Heat Mass Transf 137 (2019) 857–867. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.03.103

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    R.K. Shah, S. Khandekar, Heat transfer augmentation in ferrofluids in presence of external magnetic fields, in: International Conference on Computational Methods for Thermal Problems, 2018

    2018

  30. [39]

    Wörner, Numerical modeling of multiphase flows in microfluidics and micro process engineering: a review of methods and applications, Microfluid Nanofluidics 12 (2012) 841–

    M. Wörner, Numerical modeling of multiphase flows in microfluidics and micro process engineering: a review of methods and applications, Microfluid Nanofluidics 12 (2012) 841–

    2012

  31. [40]

    H. Hua, J. Shin, J. Kim, Level Set, Phase-Field, and Immersed Boundary Methods for Two-Phase Fluid Flows, J Fluids Eng 136 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025658

    2013 doi

  32. [257]

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1233775

    doi

  33. [767]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2006.09.003

    2006 doi

  34. [886]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-012-0940-8

    doi

  35. [3131]

    https://doi.org/10.1108/HFF-01-2020-0001

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.