Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Deformable bodies in a 3-dimensional viscous flow: Vorticity-Stream vector formulation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three-dimensional flows with deformable membranes and droplets can be solved as two coupled Poisson equations in vorticity and a stream vector, with no pressure solve.

desk verdict A promising 3D phase-field/vorticity solver whose wall boundary conditions are likely under-specified; the no-slip condition is not enforced on the total velocity. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.05031 v2 pith:NAE2HGQ4 submitted 2026-01-08 physics.flu-dyn physics.bio-ph

Andreu F. Gallen , Joan Muñoz Biosca , Mario Castro , Aurora Hernández-Machado This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.bio-ph
keywords vorticity–streamvectorformulationphase-fieldmethodlow-Reynolds-numberflowdeformableinterfacesCanham–HelfrichenergyCahn–Hilliardvesicleanddropletsimulationlateralmigration
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 aims to show that low-Reynolds-number 3D flow around deformable elastic objects — vesicles, red blood cells, droplets — can be simulated without solving the pressure field. The key move is to write velocity as the curl of a stream vector and vorticity as the unknown of a Poisson equation, turning the fluid equations into coupled Poisson problems that couple to a phase-field equation for the interface. The interface can be governed by different free energies, such as Canham–Helfrich bending for membranes or Cahn–Hilliard tension for droplets. The authors demonstrate the method by recovering canonical shapes (parachute and slipper red blood cells) in Poiseuille flow, capturing non-inertial lateral migration in Couette flow with viscosity-contrast dependence, and producing membrane stress maps. If the approach holds, micron-scale biomedical flow simulations become much simpler to implement.

What carries the argument

The stream vector ψ, the three-dimensional analogue of the 2D stream function, defined by v = ∇×ψ with the gauge ∇·ψ = 0. Together with the vorticity ω = ∇×v, the incompressible Stokes equations reduce to two Poisson problems: ∇²ω = (1/η)(∇φ)×(∇µ) and ∇²ψ = −ω, while the interface is carried by the phase-field equation ∂tφ = M(∇²µ + λ_V) − (∇×ψ)·∇φ. The identity that carries the argument is the matched-asymptotic result that the chemical-potential body force yields, at leading order, a Gibbs–Thomson relation µ₀ = γH with γ = 2√2σ/3 for Cahn–Hilliard, mapping the diffuse model onto sharp-interface Laplace-law and Helfrich bending balances.

What would settle it

Compute a single well-controlled case — e.g., a vesicle with a given reduced volume in unbounded shear at low Reynolds number — with this method and with an established sharp-interface (boundary-integral) solver at matching parameters. If the steady shape, tank-treading frequency (where applicable), or stress distribution differ beyond numerical error, the effective boundary conditions are not recovered. An even sharper test is to measure the pressure jump across the interface at finite ε and check it approaches 2γH + κ(2ΔsH + 4H(H²−K)) − 2λAH as ε→0.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper establishes that the evolution of a deformable body in a Stokes flow can be written as a phase-field advection–diffusion equation for φ, a Poisson equation for the vorticity ω, and a Poisson equation for the stream vector ψ, with velocity given by v = ∇×ψ. The body force on the fluid is the phase-field term −φ∇µ, whose sharp-interface limit produces the no-slip condition, the kinematic condition, continuity of tangential velocity, and the normal stress balance with surface tension γ = 2√2σ/3 for Cahn–Hilliard interfaces, plus an added Helfrich bending term for membrane energy. The authors demonstrate that this formulation, implemented with standard finite differences, reproduces k

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the diffuse-interface force used in the vorticity equation yields, in the sharp-interface limit, exactly the physical boundary conditions of an elastic membrane or droplet — correct surface tension, correct bending resistance — and the paper states rather than derives the bending case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fluid part of each time step reduces to two Poisson solves (vorticity and stream vector) plus an explicit update for the phase field, so 3D vesicle and droplet simulations run on a fixed grid with standard finite differences, without pressure boundary conditions or re-meshing.
  • Switching between membrane and droplet physics reduces to substituting one free-energy functional for another and recomputing the chemical potential; the fluid equations are unchanged.
  • The squared vorticity and stream-vector fluctuation observables provide quantitative fingerprints of shape change; they plateau when the body reaches a steady, effectively rigid configuration.
  • The method captures non-inertial lateral migration of vesicles in Couette flow, with equilibrium position controlled by viscosity contrast and reduced volume, and computes in-plane shear stress maps on the membrane.
  • The same scheme extends to inertial flow by replacing the vorticity Poisson equation with a heat-type equation, so the framework can be pushed beyond the low-Reynolds regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A systematic ε-convergence study — decreasing interface width and grid spacing together and comparing shapes and stresses to a sharp-interface boundary-integral solver — would directly test whether the effective boundary conditions hold at finite interface width; the paper does not report such a study.
  • The vorticity and stream-vector fluctuation observables could in principle be measured from experimental micro-PIV velocity fields, offering a lab-side fingerprint of shape transitions in flowing cells.
  • The formulation's Poisson structure suggests it should port readily to sparse iterative solvers and GPU accelerators; the paper does not explore performance but the equations are linear at each step, so such acceleration is a plausible extension.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 3D vorticity–stream vector formulation for low-Reynolds-number incompressible flow with phase-field models of deformable interfaces. The fluid equations are recast as two coupled Poisson problems for the vorticity ω and a vector potential ψ, with the interface evolved by a Cahn–Hilliard/Model-B-type equation that can incorporate Cahn–Hilliard surface tension or Canham–Helfrich bending energies. The authors demonstrate the method on vesicles and droplets in Poiseuille and Couette flows, reporting recovery of canonical red-blood-cell shapes (parachute, slipper), lateral migration, and interfacial shear stress maps. They also introduce integral observables based on deviations of ω and ψ from their empty-channel values and release the code on GitHub.

Significance. If the formulation is correct, it provides a comparatively simple and lightweight alternative to LBM, boundary-integral, and immersed-boundary methods for simulating deformable particles in confined low-Reynolds flows, avoiding a pressure solve and enforcing incompressibility by construction. The paper is also open about the code, which is a positive feature for reproducibility. However, the validation is entirely qualitative (shapes compared by eye, no grid-convergence or benchmark-error study), and the boundary-condition implementation raises a serious continuum-level concern that affects all confined-flow results. The sharp-interface matched-asymptotic derivation, which is load-bearing for the physical fidelity of the interface stresses, is sketched rather than rigorously established. The potential significance is real, but the current manuscript does not yet support the central claim that the method 'successfully recovers' the physical phenomenology.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results and Discussion, Figures 1–4] The no-slip condition at the channel walls is not correctly implemented by setting ω and ψ to their empty-channel base-flow values. For the perturbation fields, ψ_p = ψ - ψ_base satisfies ∇²ψ_p = -ω_p with ψ_p = 0 on the wall. This Dirichlet condition does not constrain the normal derivative of ψ_p, so the tangential components of v_p = ∇×ψ_p at the wall are generally nonzero; e.g., at a wall y = const, v_{p,x} = ∂ψ_{p,z}/∂y - ∂ψ_{p,y}/∂z, and the first term is not forced to vanish. Similarly, prescribing ω_p = 0 at the wall fixes the wall shear to the empty-channel value, which is inconsistent with the flow perturbation caused by the body. This is a continuum-level error that does not disappear under grid refinement, and it affects every confined-flow simulation in the paper (Figures 1–4). The statement that 'the BCs of the fluid are equivalent to the conditions without immersed bodies'
  2. [Supplementary Materials, 'Matched asymptotic derivation', Eqs. (S9)–(S27)] The validation is entirely qualitative. Shapes are compared by eye to known red-blood-cell morphologies, and stress maps are presented without reference results or error measures. There is no grid-convergence study, no comparison with boundary-integral or LBM benchmarks, and no quantitative metric (e.g., Taylor deformation parameter for droplets, or a known drag/shape for a vesicle in a channel). The observables in Figure 2 are introduced as 'very reactive' but are not validated against any physical quantity. This leaves the central claim that the method 'successfully recovers' canonical shapes unsupported. Please add at least: (i) a grid-refinement study for a representative droplet/vesicle case showing convergence of shape, stress, and the proposed observables; (ii) a comparison with an established benchmark, such as small-deformation droplet theory in shear flow or published vesicle s
  3. [Main text Eq. (5a) and Supplementary Eq. (S38)] The sharp-interface limit of the diffuse-interface body force is load-bearing because the vorticity Poisson equation (5b) relies on -φ∇μ producing the correct surface tension and bending stress. The derivation is incomplete and contains apparent indexing errors: Eq. (S12) uses μ0 for the next-order chemical potential while earlier μ0=0 is the equilibrium condition, and Eq. (S15) yields γ = 2√2σ/3, which appears dimensionally inconsistent with the Cahn–Hilliard energy (10) where σ has dimensions of length² (the surface tension should scale as √σ). The Helfrich stress condition in Eq. (S27) is simply stated, not derived. Since the membrane simulations use the Helfrich energy, the effective boundary conditions — particularly the bending term κ(2Δ_sH + 4H(H²−K)) — are not established. I request a complete, self-contained matched-asymptotic derivation for both energies, or a clear reference t
  4. [Main text, Results; Supplementary] The volume Lagrange multiplier λ_V is introduced in the phase-field equation as ∂tφ = M(∇²μ + λ_V) - v·∇φ. If λ_V is spatially uniform, ∇²λ_V=0 and the term Mλ_V does not conserve volume: integrating over a periodic or no-flux domain gives ∫∂tφ dV = Mλ_V V, not zero. If λ_V is intended to be a Lagrange multiplier that enforces the volume constraint, it must enter as a spatially varying or time-dependent field used to project the chemical potential (e.g., μ → μ - λ_V with λ_V chosen to maintain ∫φ dV), or be added inside the Laplacian in a form that produces no net source. The paper's statement that Model-B dynamics conserves volume and that λ_V only helps at high flow speeds does not resolve this inconsistency. Since volume conservation is crucial for vesicle simulations, this needs to be clarified and corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Discussion] Notation is inconsistent: the vector potential is denoted ψ in the main equations (3)–(5) but ξ in the observables of Figures 2 and 3. Please unify to one symbol.
  2. [Figure captions] Typographical errors: 'Pouiseuille' should be 'Poiseuille'; 'non-intertial' should be 'non-inertial'; 'Canh-Hilliard' should be 'Cahn–Hilliard'.
  3. [Main text 'Boundary conditions'] Figure 4(C): the horizontal axis label appears as 'x(x)' which is likely a typo. Also, the figure panels D and C are discussed in an order that could be clarified.
  4. [Supplementary Eq. (36)] Eq. (12) and (13): the Couette boundary conditions for ω and ψ are written component-wise in a way that is ambiguous regarding which component is meant; please write them as explicit vectors with all three components, and specify the coordinate system (especially whether the moving wall is at y=0 or y=h).
  5. [References] The inertial extension in Supplementary Eq. (36) appears to have a missing factor of ρ in the vorticity equation; as written, ρ/η ∂tω has units of 1/length² but the diffusion term ∇²ω has units of 1/(length²·time) — please check the dimensional consistency.
  6. [None] Some references are incomplete (e.g., [3] has a malformed title/edition), and the GitHub repository [30] should be versioned or archived (e.g., Zenodo) for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructional circularity; the 3D formulation is derived independently from Stokes, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central system (5a–c) is derived in the paper from the Stokes equation (Eq. 6), the vector-potential identity (Eq. 7), and the phase-field dynamics (Eq. 2), and the supplementary matched-asymptotic analysis is an independent derivation (Cahn–Hilliard) of the effective interfacial conditions. No parameter is fitted to a target observable; the reported RBC/droplet shapes and stress maps are simulation outputs, not regressions. The self-citations are minor: [19] supplies diagnostic observables and the 2D Couette migration code, and [29]/[5] supply free-energy forms, but these are not the load-bearing justification for Eq. (5). I also flag two non-circular gaps that should be weighed separately: the Helfrich sharp-interface stress jump (Supp. Eq. 27) is stated rather than derived, and the wall boundary-condition implementation (Eqs. 12–13) prescribes base-flow ω and ψ at walls, which may not enforce no-slip on the total velocity. These are correctness/derivation concerns, not instances of a prediction reducing by construction to its inputs, so they do not raise the circularity score beyond the minor-self-citation level.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mathematical derivation relies on standard vector calculus and Stokes-flow modeling, but the physical fidelity depends on the matched-asymptotic equivalence between the diffuse-interface force and sharp-interface membrane mechanics. Several numerical/penalty parameters are not reported, and no convergence study is provided.

free parameters (4)
  • Phase-field mobility M = not reported
    Sets interface relaxation rate in Eq. (5a); no value or calibration given.
  • Interface width ε = not reported in lattice units
    Controls sharp-interface limit; no resolution study.
  • Area/volume penalty multipliers λ_A, λ_V = not reported
    Chosen via penalty method to enforce area/volume; values absent.
  • Grid spacing Δx and time step Δt = not reported in physical units
    Lattice units used; no convergence analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stokes flow: inertial terms negligible
    Core equations (5) drop inertial terms; claims limited to low-Reynolds-number regimes.
  • domain assumption Phase-field force -φ∇µ in vorticity equation reproduces sharp-interface stress balance
    Matched asymptotics in Supplementary is the bridge between diffuse-interface model and membrane physics; load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Gauge ∇·ψ=0 can be imposed in discrete finite-difference solves
    Needed for Eq. (5c); discrete gauge preservation is not discussed.
  • domain assumption No-slip BC at walls and known analytic base flow for BCs
    Used for all simulations; BCs are prescribed from analytic Poiseuille/Couette profiles.
  • domain assumption Model-B-like dynamics for φ with advection
    Phase-field evolution Eq. (5a) is standard Model B with advection; volume conservation handled by penalty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deformable bodies in a 3-dimensional viscous flow: Vorticity-Stream vector formulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAE2HGQ4

@misc{pith2026260105031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deformable bodies in a 3-dimensional viscous flow: Vorticity-Stream vector formulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAE2HGQ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.05031}
}
read the original abstract

When simulating three-dimensional flows interacting with deformable and elastic obstacles, current methods often encounter complexities in the governing equations and challenges in numerical implementation. In this work, we introduce a novel numerical formulation for simulating incompressible viscous flows at low Reynolds numbers in the presence of deformable interfaces. Our method employs a vorticity-stream vector formulation that significantly simplifies the fluid solver, transforming it into a set of coupled Poisson problems. The body-fluid interface is modeled using a phase field, allowing for the incorporation of various free-energy models to account for membrane bending and surface tension. In contrast to existing three-dimensional approaches, such as Lattice Boltzmann Methods or boundary-integral techniques, our formulation is lightweight and grounded in classical fluid mechanics principles, making it implementable with standard finite-difference techniques. We demonstrate the capabilities of our method by simulating the evolution of a single vesicle or droplet in Newtonian Poiseuille and Couette flows under different free-energy models, successfully recovering canonical axisymmetric shapes and stress profiles. Although this work primarily focuses on single-body dynamics in Newtonian suspending fluids, the framework can be extended to include body forces, inertial effects, and viscoelastic media.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.05031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: First three plots correspond to a membrane inside a microfluidic flow. On the surfaces, we have [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Observables computing the influence of the elastic object on the flow of fluid in the channel. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (A) Shape changes around the spike in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [19]

    A. F. Gallen, M. Castro and A. Hernandez-Machado,Soft Matter, 2021,17, 9587–9594

    2021

  2. [1]

    G. M. Whitesides,Nature, 2006,442, 368–373

    2006

  3. [2]

    C. N. Baroud, F. Gallaire and R. Dangla,Lab on a Chip, 2010,10, 2032–2045

    2010

  4. [3]

    Tabeling,) Book Introduction to Microfluidics Oxford University Press (Oxford, England ISBN, 2005, edn.), 2005, 978–970

    P. Tabeling,) Book Introduction to Microfluidics Oxford University Press (Oxford, England ISBN, 2005, edn.), 2005, 978–970

    2005

  5. [4]

    D. A. Fedosov, B. Caswell and G. E. Karniadakis,Biophysical journal, 2010,98, 2215–2225

    2010

  6. [5]

    Sajeesh, M

    P. Sajeesh, M. Doble and A. Sen,Biomicrofluidics, 2014,8, 054112

    2014

  7. [6]

    Sajeesh, S

    P. Sajeesh, S. Manasi, M. Doble and A. Sen,Lab on a Chip, 2015,15, 3738–3748

    2015

  8. [7]

    Sajeesh and A

    P. Sajeesh and A. K. Sen,Microfluidics and nanofluidics, 2014,17, 1–52

    2014

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    F. Shen, Y. Zhang, C. Li, Y. Pang and Z. Liu,Microfluidics and Nanofluidics, 2024,28, 29

    2024

  2. [9]

    G. R. L´ azaro, A. Hern´ andez-Machado and I. Pagonabarraga,Soft Matter, 2014,10, 7195–7206

    2014

  3. [10]

    G. R. L´ azaro, A. Hern´ andez-Machado and I. Pagonabarraga,The European Physical Journal E, 2019, 42, 1–9

    2019

  4. [11]

    Mauer, S

    J. Mauer, S. Mendez, L. Lanotte, F. Nicoud, M. Abkarian, G. Gompper and D. A. Fedosov,Physical Review Letters, 2018,121, 118103

    2018

  5. [12]

    Lanotte, J

    L. Lanotte, J. Mauer, S. Mendez, D. A. Fedosov, J.-M. Fromental, V. Claveria, F. Nicoud, G. Gompper and M. Abkarian,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2016,113, 13289–13294

    2016

  6. [13]

    Aouane, M

    O. Aouane, M. Thi´ ebaud, A. Benyoussef, C. Wagner and C. Misbah,Physical Review E, 2014,90, 033011

    2014

  7. [14]

    Kaoui, N

    B. Kaoui, N. Tahiri, T. Biben, H. Ez-Zahraouy, A. Benyoussef, G. Biros and C. Misbah,Physical Review E, 2011,84, 041906

    2011

  8. [15]

    C. D. Eggleton and A. S. Popel,Physics of fluids, 1998,10, 1834–1845

    1998

  9. [16]

    C. K. Aidun and J. R. Clausen,Annual review of fluid mechanics, 2010,42, 439–472

    2010

  10. [17]

    H. Zhao, A. P. Spann and E. S. G. Shaqfeh,Physics of Fluids, 2011,23, 121901

    2011

  11. [18]

    Rallabandi,Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2024,56, 491–519

    B. Rallabandi,Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2024,56, 491–519

    2024

  12. [20]

    Guckenberger and S

    A. Guckenberger and S. Gekle,Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2017,29, 203001

    2017

  13. [21]

    Weinan and J.-G

    E. Weinan and J.-G. Liu,Journal of Computational Physics, 1997,138, 57–82

    1997

  14. [22]

    M. A. Olshanskii and L. G. Rebholz,Journal of Computational Physics, 2010,229, 4291–4303

    2010

  15. [23]

    H. L. Meitz and H. F. Fasel,Journal of Computational Physics, 2000,157, 371–403

    2000

  16. [24]

    Chen and X

    Y. Chen and X. Xie,Journal of Computational Physics, 2016,312, 50–81

    2016

  17. [25]

    Poncet,Journal of Computational Physics, 2009,228, 7268–7288

    P. Poncet,Journal of Computational Physics, 2009,228, 7268–7288

    2009

  18. [26]

    R. O. Fox,Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2012,44, 47–76

    2012

  19. [27]

    Balachandar and J

    S. Balachandar and J. K. Eaton,Annual review of fluid mechanics, 2010,42, 111–133

    2010

  20. [28]

    Noguchi and G

    H. Noguchi and G. Gompper,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2005,102, 14159–14164

    2005

  21. [29]

    Campelo and A

    F. Campelo and A. Hernandez-Machado,The European Physical Journal E, 2006,20, 37–45

    2006

  22. [30]

    A. F. Gallen,MemPhaseFlow3D,https://github.com/fdzgallen/MemPhaseFlow3D/, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Z. Shen, F. Plourabou´ e, J. S. Lintuvuori, H. Zhang, M. Abbasi and C. Misbah,Physical Review Letters, 2023,130, 014001. 10 Deformable bodies in a 3-dimensional viscous flow: V orticity-Stream vector formulation

    2023

  24. [32]

    Ho and L

    B. Ho and L. Leal,Journal of fluid mechanics, 1974,65, 365–400

    1974

  25. [33]

    Olla,Journal de Physique II, 1997,7, 1533–1540

    P. Olla,Journal de Physique II, 1997,7, 1533–1540

    1997

  26. [34]

    B. Lorz, R. Simson, J. Nardi and E. Sackmann,Europhysics Letters, 2000,51, 468

    2000

  27. [35]

    Mazuel, M

    F. Mazuel, M. Reffay, V. Du, J.-C. Bacri, J.-P. Rieu and C. Wilhelm,Physical review letters, 2015,114, 098105. 11 Supplementary Materials: Deformable bodies in a 3-dimensional viscous flow: Vorticity-Stream vector formulation Andreu F. Gallen 1,∗ Joan Muñoz Biosca 2, Mario Cas...

    2015

  28. [36]

    Continuity of velocity: [⃗ v] = 0. (22)

  29. [37]

    Kinematic condition: Vn =⃗ v·⃗ n. (23)

  30. [38]

    For constantγ, this reduces to the Laplace pressure condition: [p] = 2η[∂nvn]+2γH

    Stress balance: [σ] ·⃗ n= 2γH ⃗ n− ∇sγ, (24) where σ = −pI +η(∇⃗ v+ (∇⃗ v)T) is the Newtonian stress tensor, and γ = 2 √ 2σ 3 is the surface tension. For constantγ, this reduces to the Laplace pressure condition: [p] = 2η[∂nvn]+2γH. (25)

  31. [39]

    These conditions, together with the Stokes equations in the bulk phases, form the sharp-interface model corre- sponding to the diffuse-interface Stokes–phase-field system

    T angential stress: For a clean interface (no Marangoni effects), [σnt] = 0, (26) where σnt denotes the tangential component of the stress. These conditions, together with the Stokes equations in the bulk phases, form the sharp-interface model corre- sponding to the diffuse-in...

    2000

  32. [40]

    Campelo and A

    F. Campelo and A. Hernandez-Machado, The European Physical Journal E , 2006, 20, 37–45

    2006

  33. [41]

    Q. Du, C. Liu and X. Wang, Journal of Computational Physics , 2004, 198, 450–468

    2004

  34. [42]

    C. Peco, A. Rosolen and M. Arroyo, Journal of Computational Physics , 2013, 249, 320–336

    2013

  35. [43]

    Goldstein, C

    H. Goldstein, C. Poole and J. Safko, Classical mechanics, 2002

    2002

  36. [44]

    A. F. Gallen, J. R. Romero-Arias, R. A. Barrio and A. Hernandez-Machado, Soft Matter , 2023, 19, 2908–2918. 7

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.