Local Well-Posedness for a Diffuse Interface Model for Two-Phase Flows from Mixture Theory

Harald Garcke; Helmut Abels; Julia Wittmann

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 29 references

Local Well-Posedness for a Diffuse Interface Model for Two-Phase Flows from Mixture Theory

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Each phase of a two-phase mixture gets its own velocity field, and the paper proves that the resulting diffuse interface model is locally well-posed: for separated initial phases, a unique strong solution exists on a short time interval.

desk verdict First well-posedness theorem for the two-velocity full-mixture diffuse interface model, with a real but repairable gap: the stated linear invertibility results miss a zero-mean condition on the fourth component. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29298 v1 pith:5GAEIJQS submitted 2026-07-31 math.AP physics.flu-dyn

Helmut Abels , Harald Garcke , Julia Wittmann This is my paper

classification math.APphysics.flu-dyn MSC 35Q3035Q3535D3535G6176D0576D0376T06

keywords two-phaseflowdiffuseinterfacemixturetheoryNavier–Stokesequationslocalwell-posednessstrongsolutionsunmatcheddensitiescapillarityterm

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 proves that the recently proposed full-mixture diffuse interface model — the one that assigns each fluid phase its own momentum and mass balance, rather than a single averaged velocity — is locally well-posed. For two incompressible viscous phases with different densities on the periodic torus, and for initial phase fractions strictly between 0 and 1, the coupled system of two Navier–Stokes equations, a phase-field transport equation, and a volume constraint has a unique strong solution on a short time interval. This is the first analytical result for the model, giving a rigorous PDE foundation to a formulation that captures the kinetic energy of relative motion between phases. The proof is a fixed-point argument; the main difficulty is inverting the principal linearized system, which couples Stokes-type equations to a capillarity term. A reader should care because well-posedness is the basic prerequisite for trusting simulations and for any further global or long-time analysis of a model that goes beyond the classic single-velocity diffuse interface framework.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the principal linearized operator L_T obtained by freezing the initial phase field: two linearized Navier–Stokes equations for the two velocities, a transport equation linking the time derivative of the phase field to div(phi_1,0 v_1), and the volume constraint div(phi_1,0 v_1 + (1 - phi_1,0) v_2) = 0, including capillary terms of the form +/- phi_j,0 grad Delta phi_1. The central technical step is a damped plate equation for phi_1 derived by testing with the combination d_t phi_1 - Delta phi_1; this yields uniform control of grad Delta phi_1, the highest-order coupling term, and makes the regularized linear system solvable with estimates independent of the regular

What would settle it

Take phi_1,0 identically 0 on an open set, so rho_2 = 0 there, while maintaining div(phi_1,0 v_1,0 + (1 - phi_1,0) v_2,0) = 0, and run the energy estimate of the regularized linear system with a test velocity supported in that region; the weighted inner product loses coercivity because its weight rho_2 vanishes, so the uniform a priori bounds that underpin the fixed-point contraction cannot hold in that setting. If a strong solution still exists, strict separation is unnecessary; if not, the theorem's data range is essentially optimal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 1.1, is that the mixture-theory system is locally strongly well-posed: initial data v_j,0 in H^1, phi_1,0 in H^2 with 0 < phi_1,0 < 1 and the compatibility condition div(phi_1,0 v_1,0 + (1 - phi_1,0) v_2,0) = 0 produce a unique solution on some time interval with v_j in L^2(H^2) intersected with H^1(L^2), phi_1 in L^2(H^3) intersected with H^1(H^1) and H^2(H^{-1}), and p in L^2(H^1_{(0)}). In the authors' terms, the linearized principal operator is invertible with a uniform bound independent of the time horizon, and the remaining nonlinear terms are locally Lipschitz with Lipschitz constants that vanish as the time interval shrinks; the contraction-mapping theorem

Load-bearing premise

The initial phase fraction must stay strictly between 0 and 1 everywhere, with both viscosities uniformly positive, because the proof's weighted function spaces and coercivity estimates degenerate as soon as one phase has zero density or zero viscosity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The full mixture model is a well-posed initial-value problem at least for short times, so local-in-time numerical simulations are backed by existence and uniqueness of strong solutions.
The regularity obtained — velocities with H^2 spatial regularity, phase field with H^3, pressure in H^1 — is strong enough that all terms in the partial differential equations make sense pointwise almost everywhere.
The strict separation of phases is part of the hypothesis: the result covers interfaces that are diffuse but not touching pure single-phase states, which is the natural setting for a sharp-interface limit.
Because the proof only needs the fixed-point contraction on a sufficiently small interval, the same argument supplies continuous dependence of the solution on the data in the chosen norms.
The same strategy is expected to work with external forces and more general free energies, since the assumptions are only smoothness and positivity conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

The strict inequality phi_1,0 in (0,1) is the real boundary of the theorem: if a pure-phase region is allowed, one density vanishes and the weighted Hilbert spaces used in the proof become degenerate, so a different mechanism would be needed.
The damped plate equation suggests that the phase field in this model behaves like a fourth-order parabolic variable; numerically, explicit schemes would face a stiffness comparable to Cahn–Hilliard-type systems, not just advection–diffusion.
One testable extension is to check whether global weak solutions exist, as is known for several single-velocity diffuse interface models; the local theorem gives the natural starting space and continuity estimates for such a program.
The model's relative-motion kinetic energy is what distinguishes it from single-velocity models; this paper shows that including that energy does not destroy local well-posedness, so the model choice can be guided by physical accuracy rather than by regularity obstructions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is the first analytical treatment of the ten Eikelder–van der Zee–Schillinger full-mixture model, and the proof is worth taking seriously. But the linear-theory propositions as stated are too broad: they omit a zero-mean condition on the fourth right-hand-side component. That is a repairable gap, not a wreck.

The genuinely new content is Theorem 1.1: local strong well-posedness for two incompressible viscous phases with unmatched densities, each phase having its own velocity. The fixed-point strategy follows the Abels–Weber/Abels–Haselböck program, but the analysis of the principal linear system is new, especially the damped-plate testing that controls ∇Δφ1. The paper is carefully written, the structural assumptions are stated honestly, and the proof is parameter-free. It does not rely on fitted coefficients or circular normalization.

The soft spot is real. In (3.3), Y_T^4 only requires g2|_{t=0}=0. But every element in the range of L_T has fourth component with zero spatial mean, since integrating div(φ1,0 v1 + (1−φ1,0)v2) over the torus gives zero. The reductions in Propositions 4.12, 4.18, and 4.20 solve Δq1 = g2, which requires ⟨g2⟩=0. So the statements of Propositions 3.2, 4.12, 4.18, and 4.20 are false as written. The concrete counterexample g2(t,x)=t with zero initial velocities and φ1,0=1/2 satisfies the stated compatibility condition but has no solution. The good news is that the nonlinear operator F_T automatically maps into the mean-zero subspace, so adding ⟨g2⟩=0 to Y_T^4 and Υ_T^4 repairs the fixed-point argument without changing the main theorem. This should be fixed in revision.

Two more remarks, in proportion. The strict condition φ1,0∈(0,1) is needed for the weighted spaces to be nondegenerate; it excludes initial configurations where one phase has vanished. That is a genuine limitation of the theorem but not a flaw in the proof. The delicate estimates in Lemmas 4.9 and 4.15 are intricate; I did not verify every line, but I saw no obvious error and the overall architecture is coherent.

This paper deserves a serious referee. The mean-zero correction should be requested, and the linear propositions restated with repair. After that, I expect the central theorem to stand. I would bring it to a reading group and would cite it once the corrected version appears.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proves local-in-time existence and uniqueness of strong solutions for the ten Eikelder–van der Zee–Schillinger diffuse-interface mixture model for two incompressible viscous phases with unmatched densities, in the reduced formulation (1.3) on the torus. The proof reformulates the system as a fixed point of the operator L_T^{-1}∘F_T, where L_T is the principal linearization. The core of the paper (Sections 4–5) establishes invertibility of L_T with time-uniform bounds and local Lipschitz continuity of F_T. The linear analysis proceeds through ε-regularization, uniform estimates for constant coefficients — including a damped plate estimate for ∇Δφ_1 — passage ε→0, a perturbation argument, and a localization argument. The main theorem asserts unique strong solutions for initial data v_{j,0}∈H^1, φ_{1,0}∈H^2 with φ_{1,0}∈(0,1), under assumptions (A1)–(A5).

Significance. If correct, this is the first well-posedness result for the ten Eikelder mixture model and a technically substantial contribution to diffuse-interface models with two separate velocity fields. The proof strategy is natural and the paper ships a detailed, largely self-contained argument; the abstract parabolic theory, composition lemmas, and interpolation tools are used without fitted parameters or circular normalization. The regularization → uniform estimates → limit → perturbation/localization → fixed-point architecture is appropriate for the system. However, the linear solvability statements contain a genuine missing mean-zero condition, and one key perturbation step currently relies on a uniform bound that is only established later in a way that depends on that same step. These are repairable, but the paper cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (2)

[§3, Eqs. (3.3)–(3.4); Propositions 3.2, 4.12, 4.18, 4.20] The space Y_T^4 in (3.3) only imposes g_2|_{t=0}=0, but for every z∈X_T the fourth component of L_T(z)=div(φ_{1,0}v_1+(1−φ_{1,0})v_2) has zero spatial mean a.e. in t. Hence L_T maps X_T into the mean-zero subspace of Y_T^4, while Y_T^4 contains non-mean-zero elements. Concretely, take v_{1,0}=v_{2,0}=0, φ_{1,0}=1/2, g_2(t,x)=t: this satisfies all stated conditions, yet integrating (4.1d) gives 0=|T^d|t, a contradiction. Consequently Proposition 3.2 is false as stated, and the reductions to g_2=0 in Propositions 4.12, 4.18, and 4.20 fail because they solve Δq_1=g_2, which requires zero mean. The nonlinear F_T^4 in (3.5) is automatically mean-zero, so the fixed-point argument is repairable by adding the mean-zero condition to Y_T^4 and Υ_T^4, but the linear statements must be corrected.
[§4.6, Proposition 4.19] The proof defines M:=sup_{0<T≤T_0}||A_T(φ̄_{1,0})^{-1}||_{L(Υ_T,Z_T)} without proving M<∞. This uniform-in-T bound is precisely the content of Lemma 4.22, whose proof relies on Proposition 4.20, which in turn relies on Proposition 4.19. Thus the current ordering is circular at a load-bearing point. The T-uniform bound for constant coefficients should be established independently — for example by moving the extension argument of Lemma 4.22 before Proposition 4.19, or by deriving T-uniform estimates directly from Lemmas 4.8–4.11 — before Proposition 4.19 is used.

minor comments (3)

[§4.7, Lemma 4.22] The expression 'C L_{T_0}^{-1}' is not a well-defined constant as written. The proof should introduce a constant C(T_0):=C||L_{T_0}^{-1}||_{L(Υ_{T_0},Z_{T_0})} so that the claimed T-independence is unambiguous.
[§4.3 and §4.5, Propositions 4.12 and 4.18] The reductions 'we reduce to g_2=0' and 'we reduce to ⟨φ_1⟩=0' silently assume mean-zero conditions that are not part of the stated hypotheses. Once Y_T^4 is corrected, these reductions should be stated with the required constraints.
[Throughout] There are minor typos and formatting issues: 'as a non-relabeled subsequences' appears twice; 'as claimed .' has a space before the period; the Introduction mentions surface tension coefficients σ_1,σ_2 as general parameters but Assumption (A4) fixes them to 1, so the terminology should be adjusted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fixed-point construction, linear invertibility proof, and nonlinear estimates are self-contained; self-citations are technical and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The main result is obtained by a standard fixed-point decomposition: the paper defines L_T as the principal linear part and F_T as the remainder in (3.4)–(3.5), then proves that the fixed-point equation z = L_T^{-1}F_T(z) is equivalent to the original system (1.3). This equivalence is by direct algebraic rearrangement of the PDEs, not by assuming Theorem 1.1. The load-bearing ingredient, invertibility of L_T, is proved independently in Section 4 through regularization (Lemma 4.3), uniform a priori estimates (Lemmas 4.7–4.17), passage to the limit, and a perturbation/localization argument (Propositions 4.19–4.20). None of these steps uses the target well-posedness result as an input. The nonlinear Lipschitz estimate in Section 5 is a direct estimate from the structure of the nonlinear terms; its constant tends to zero with T through explicit embedding estimates, not by tailoring the function spaces to force the contraction. Citations to the authors' earlier works [4], [9], [10] supply abstract parabolic theory, extension operators, composition lemmas, and a template for T-uniform bounds; these are parameter-free auxiliary results with stated assumptions and do not contain the present theorem. No fitted parameter is called a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the same authors is imported to force the choice of model, and no known result is renamed as a new derivation. A separate correctness issue exists: Proposition 3.2's claim that L_T maps X_T onto all of Y_T is too broad, since integrating the fourth component of (3.4) forces the spatial mean of g_2 to vanish, a condition not imposed in Y_T^4. This is a genuine gap in the stated linear solvability, but it is not circularity: F_T's fourth component automatically has zero mean, so the fixed-point argument is repairable by restricting to the mean-zero subspace. The paper's central derivation does not reduce to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 11 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorem is conditional on standard regularity/positivity assumptions on the model coefficients and on a non-degeneracy condition for the initial phase field. The only hand-chosen number is the surface tension normalization σ=1. The proof uses standard published functional-analytic tools, several from the same research group; these are not fitted to the result.

free parameters (1)

Surface tension coefficients σ1, σ2 = σ1 = σ2 = 1 (assumption A4)
Chosen equal to 1 for simplicity; this is a normalization in the statement of the theorem, not fitted to data. The proof is carried out only for this normalization.

assumptions (11)

domain assumption (A1) d ∈ {2,3}, spatial domain is the torus T^d
Functional-analytic framework (Hilbert spaces, Sobolev embeddings) and the linear theory are set on the flat torus; the paper does not address bounded domains or boundary conditions.
domain assumption (A2) F ∈ C^3(R)
Needed for the nonlinear operator F_T to be locally Lipschitz via composition estimates (Section 5).
domain assumption (A3) ν_j, λ_j ∈ C^2_b(R) uniformly positive
Positivity gives coercivity of the Stokes-type bilinear form; boundedness of derivatives is used in Lipschitz estimates.
domain assumption (A4) σ1 = σ2 = 1
Simplification of the model; the theorem is conditional on it.
domain assumption (A5) R locally Lipschitz
Controls the momentum-exchange terms in the Lipschitz estimate (Proposition 3.3).
domain assumption φ_{1,0} ∈ (0,1) pointwise
Ensures ρ_j(φ_{1,0}) > 0, so the weighted Hilbert spaces in Section 4.1 are non-degenerate.
domain assumption div(φ_{1,0} v_{1,0} + (1−φ_{1,0})v_{2,0}) = 0
Necessary and sufficient compatibility for the divergence constraint at t=0; defines Y_T^4.
standard math Abstract parabolic evolution result (Proposition 2.3, cited from [4])
Existence and regularity for the regularized linear system in Section 4.1.
standard math Composition with Sobolev functions (Lemma 2.1, cited from [10], [9])
Bounds for f(φ) when φ has H^3 spatial regularity; used throughout Sections 4–5.
standard math Extension operator for short-time spaces (Lemma 3.1, cited from [10])
Provides the T-uniform bound of L_T^{-1} in Lemma 4.22.
domain assumption Equivalence of (1.1) and (1.3) via φ1+φ2=1 and redefinition of p and F
The whole analysis is performed on the reformulated system (1.3): the paper assumes the reformulation is a faithful reduction of the original model from [28].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Local Well-Posedness for a Diffuse Interface Model for Two-Phase Flows from Mixture Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5GAEIJQS

@misc{pith2026260729298,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Local Well-Posedness for a Diffuse Interface Model for Two-Phase Flows from Mixture Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5GAEIJQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29298}
}

read the original abstract

Local-in-time well-posedness is established for a recently proposed diffuse interface model describing incompressible two-phase flows. The result constitutes the first analytical study of a model introduced by ten Eikelder et al. for the motion of a binary mixture of macroscopically immiscible, viscous, incompressible fluids with unmatched densities. In contrast to classic diffuse interface models based on a single mean velocity, this model is derived within the framework of mixture theory, assigning each phase its own momentum and mass balance, which results in a system of two coupled Navier--Stokes equations and two mass transport equations. The proof of the well-posedness result uses a fixed-point strategy, where the main difficulty lies in the analysis of the principal part of the associated linearized system.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

H. Abels. Existence of weak solutions for a diffuse interface model for viscous, incompressible fluids with general densities.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 289(1):45–73, 2009

2009
[2]

H.Abels.Strongwell-posednessofadiffuseinterfacemodelforaviscous, quasi-incompressible two-phase flow.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 44(1):316–340, 2012

2012
[3]

H. Abels. Mixture theory for diffuse interface models of two-phase flows.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 992:F1, 2024

2024
[4]

Abels, G

H. Abels, G. Dolzmann, and Y. Liu. Well-posedness of a fully coupled Navier–Stokes/Q-tensor system with inhomogeneous boundary data.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 46(4):3050–3077, 2014

2014
[5]

Abels, H

H. Abels, H. Garcke, and A. Giorgini. Global regularity and asymptotic stabilization for the in- compressible Navier–Stokes-Cahn–Hilliard model with unmatched densities.Mathematische Annalen, 389(2):1267–1321, 2023

2023
[6]

Abels, H

H. Abels, H. Garcke, and G. Grün. Thermodynamically consistent, frame indifferent diffuse interface models for incompressible two-phase flows with different densities.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 22(3):1150013, 2012

2012
[7]

Abels, H

H. Abels, H. Garcke, and A. Poiatti. Mathematical analysis of a diffuse interface model for multi-phase flows of incompressible viscous fluids with different densities.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 26(29), 2024

2024
[8]

Abels, H

H. Abels, H. Garcke, and J. Wittmann. Diffuse interface models for two-phase flows with phase tran- sition: Modeling and existence of weak solutions.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 28(1), 2025. 56 HELMUT ABELS, HARALD GARCKE, AND JULIA WITTMANN

2025

Show all 29 references

[9]

Abels and J

H. Abels and J. Haselböck. Local well-posedness of the Cahn–Hilliard–Biot system.Journal of Evolution Equations, 26(2), 2026

2026
[10]

Abels and J

H. Abels and J. Weber. Local well-posedness of a quasi-incompressible two-phase flow.Journal of Evolution Equations, 21(3):3477–3502, 2020

2020
[11]

G. L. Aki, W. Dreyer, J. Giesselmann, and C. Kraus. A quasi-incompressible diffuse interface model with phase transition.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 24(05):827–861, 2014

2014
[12]

Amann.Linear and Quasilinear Parabolic Problems, volume 1

H. Amann.Linear and Quasilinear Parabolic Problems, volume 1. Birkhäuser Basel, 1995

1995
[13]

Bothe and W

D. Bothe and W. Dreyer. Continuum thermodynamics of chemically reacting fluid mixtures.Acta Me- chanica, 226(6):1757–1805, 2014

2014
[14]

F. Boyer. A theoretical and numerical model for the study of incompressible mixture flows.Computers & Fluids, 31(1):41–68, 2002

2002
[15]

H. Ding, P. D. M. Spelt, and C. Shu. Diffuse interface model for incompressible two-phase flows with large density ratios.Journal of Computational Physics, 226(2):2078–2095, 2007
[16]

J. E. Dunn and J. Serrin. On the thermomechanics of interstitial working.Archive for Rational Me- chanics and Analysis, 88(2):95–133, 1985

1985
[17]

M. Fei, X. Fei, Y. Liu, and H. Wu. Global weak solutions to a diffuse-interface model for quasi- incompressibletwo-phaseflowswithunmatcheddensitiesandsingularpotential, 2026.arXiv:2604.26660

2026 arXiv
[18]

Giorgini

A. Giorgini. Well-posedness of the two-dimensional Abels–Garcke–Grün model for two-phase flows with unmatched densities.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 60(3), 2021

2021
[19]

Giorgini

A. Giorgini. Existence and stability of strong solutions to the Abels–Garcke–Grün model in three dimensions.Interfaces and Free Boundaries, Mathematical Analysis, Computation and Applications, 24(4):565–608, 2022

2022
[20]

M. E. Gurtin, D. Polignone, and J. Viñals. Two-phase binary fluids and immiscible fluids described by an order parameter.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 06(06):815–831, 1996

1996
[21]

Heida, J

M. Heida, J. Málek, and K. R. Rajagopal. On the development and generalizations of Cahn–Hilliard equations within a thermodynamic framework.Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik, 63(1):145–169, 2011

2011
[22]

P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin. Theory of dynamic critical phenomena.Reviews of Modern Physics, 49(3):435–479, 1977

1977
[23]

Kotschote

M. Kotschote. Strong solutions for a compressible fluid model of Korteweg type.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré C, Analyse non linéaire, 25(4):679–696, 2008

2008
[24]

Lowengrub and L

J. Lowengrub and L. Truskinovsky. Quasi–incompressible Cahn–Hilliard fluids and topological transi- tions.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 454(1978):2617–2654, 1998

1978
[25]

Runst and W

T. Runst and W. Sickel.Sobolev Spaces of Fractional Order, Nemytskij Operators, and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations. De Gruyter, 1996

1996
[26]

Shokrpour Roudbari, G

M. Shokrpour Roudbari, G. Şimşek, E. H. van Brummelen, and K. G. van der Zee. Diffuse-interface two- phase flow models with different densities: A new quasi-incompressible form and a linear energy-stable method.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 28(04):733–770, 2018

2018
[27]

M. F. P. ten Eikelder, K. G. van der Zee, I. Akkerman, and D. Schillinger. A unified framework for Navier–Stokes Cahn–Hilliard models with non-matching densities.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 33(01):175–221, 2023

2023
[28]

M. F. P. ten Eikelder, K. G. van der Zee, and D. Schillinger. Thermodynamically consistent diffuse- interface mixture models of incompressible multicomponent fluids.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 990:A8, 2024

2024
[29]

Wloka.Partial differential equations

J. Wloka.Partial differential equations. Cambridge University Press, 1987. Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Regensburg, D–93040 Regensburg, Deutschland Email address:helmut.abels@ur.de Email address:harald.garcke@ur.de Email address:julia4.wittmann@ur.de

1987

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

H. Abels. Existence of weak solutions for a diffuse interface model for viscous, incompressible fluids with general densities.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 289(1):45–73, 2009

2009

[2] [2]

H.Abels.Strongwell-posednessofadiffuseinterfacemodelforaviscous, quasi-incompressible two-phase flow.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 44(1):316–340, 2012

2012

[3] [3]

H. Abels. Mixture theory for diffuse interface models of two-phase flows.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 992:F1, 2024

2024

[4] [4]

Abels, G

H. Abels, G. Dolzmann, and Y. Liu. Well-posedness of a fully coupled Navier–Stokes/Q-tensor system with inhomogeneous boundary data.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 46(4):3050–3077, 2014

2014

[5] [5]

Abels, H

H. Abels, H. Garcke, and A. Giorgini. Global regularity and asymptotic stabilization for the in- compressible Navier–Stokes-Cahn–Hilliard model with unmatched densities.Mathematische Annalen, 389(2):1267–1321, 2023

2023

[6] [6]

Abels, H

H. Abels, H. Garcke, and G. Grün. Thermodynamically consistent, frame indifferent diffuse interface models for incompressible two-phase flows with different densities.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 22(3):1150013, 2012

2012

[7] [7]

Abels, H

H. Abels, H. Garcke, and A. Poiatti. Mathematical analysis of a diffuse interface model for multi-phase flows of incompressible viscous fluids with different densities.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 26(29), 2024

2024

[8] [8]

Abels, H

H. Abels, H. Garcke, and J. Wittmann. Diffuse interface models for two-phase flows with phase tran- sition: Modeling and existence of weak solutions.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 28(1), 2025. 56 HELMUT ABELS, HARALD GARCKE, AND JULIA WITTMANN

2025