Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

An Oscillation-Free Real Fluid Quasi-Conservative Finite Volume Method for Transcritical and Phase-Change Flows

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper presents a quasi-conservative finite volume scheme that eliminates spurious pressure oscillations in real-fluid transcritical and phase-change flows by locally freezing and advecting two thermodynamic coefficients and then re-pro

desk verdict A genuinely new quasi-conservative construction for arbitrary real-fluid EoS with promising results, but the shock-region conservation-error claim is asserted rather than established. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.00658 v3 pith:G3DRQYOR submitted 2026-01-31 physics.comp-ph physics.flu-dyn

Haotong Bai , Wenjia Xie , Yixin Yang , Ping Yi , Mingbo Sun This is my paper
classification physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn
keywords realfluidflowsquasi-conservativeschemespuriouspressureoscillationstranscriticalflowphasechangeGrüneisencoefficientfinitevolumemethodPeng-Robinsonequationofstate
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 addresses a persistent numerical failure: a standard conservative shock-capturing scheme, which averages conserved quantities in each cell, produces nonphysical pressure oscillations at contact discontinuities whenever the equation of state is strongly nonlinear, as it is across transcritical transitions and phase boundaries. The proposed Real Fluid Quasi-Conservative (RFQC) method extends the quasi-conservative strategy from two-phase flow to arbitrary real-fluid equations of state. It decomposes the pressure-internal energy relation into a linear term (p times the reciprocal Grüneisen coefficient) plus a remainder, advects both coefficients along streamlines, reconstructs an oscillation-free pressure, and then re-projects the conserved variables through the exact EoS. The paper claims the resulting energy-conservation error is second-order in smooth regions (driven by EoS curvature) and, at discontinuities, proportional to the entropy increase, so it stays at the truncation level of the shock-capturing method. Numerical tests on n-dodecane transcritical, flash-evaporation, and shock-interface problems show the method tracks exact solutions where pressure-based and double-flux methods produce temperature errors or diverge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frozen linearization of the pressure-internal energy relation, ρe = pξ + E0, with ξ = 1/Γ = h/c² as the slope and E0 = ρe − p(e+p/ρ)/c² as the remainder. Two advection equations, ∂ξ/∂t + u∂ξ/∂x = 0 and ∂E0/∂t + u∂E0/∂x = 0, transport these coefficients along streamlines, and the reconstructed pressure p = (ρe − E0)/ξ stays in pressure equilibrium across a contact discontinuity because the linear form is preserved by cell averaging. The thermodynamic re-projection at the end of each step re-synchronizes the conservative variables with the true EoS; the proof that the error is second-order uses the isentropic identity (∂(ρe)/∂p)_s = h/c² and a Taylor expansion of

What would settle it

Run the paper's smooth density-wave advection test (n-dodecane at 1 MPa crossing the saturation line) on grids N=32 to 1024, but deliberately use a more dissipative or distorted advection update for ξ and E0, and monitor the total energy drift over time. If the global energy error no longer converges at first order or starts growing with simulation time, the subdominance assumption in the error analysis fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spurious pressure oscillations can be removed without sacrificing conservation by treating the equation of state as locally linear. At each grid point and time step the method freezes ξ = h/c² (the reciprocal Grüneisen coefficient) and E0 = ρe − p(e+p/ρ)/c², evolves them with the velocity advection equations, and recovers pressure from p = (ρe − E0)/ξ. It then performs a thermodynamic re-projection: internal energy, sound speed, and conserved variables are recomputed strictly from the real EoS so that the next step starts from a thermodynamically consistent state. The error analysis shows that the linearized relation matches the true internal energy and its first pr

Load-bearing premise

The whole error analysis rests on the assumption that the advection equations for ξ and E0 are solved exactly along streamlines; with only a first-order space-time scheme those advection errors are O(Δx), and if they are not small compared with the re-projection error, the claimed energy-conservation order could degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Transcritical and phase-change flows can be simulated with arbitrary equations of state while keeping total energy nearly conserved, avoiding the conservation loss of pressure-based methods.
  • The energy-conservation error does not accumulate with time in smooth regions, so long-time simulations such as fuel injection and mixing keep their energy budget under control.
  • At shocks, the conservation error is of the same order as the truncation error of shock capturing, meaning stability is not bought at the cost of a systematically worse shock speed or post-shock state.
  • Only one extra thermodynamic projection is added at each time step, so the method remains simple and cheap enough for practical finite-volume codes.
  • For stiff subcritical liquid and shock-interface problems, the scheme remains stable where pressure-based and double-flux approaches produce nonphysical artifacts or diverge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the method only requires pointwise evaluation of an EoS, a natural extension not explored in the paper is to tabulated or neural-network equations of state; the same two-equation advection plus re-projection loop should carry over unchanged.
  • The paper isolates the re-projection error in total energy only; an independent check of momentum and temperature errors in two or three dimensions would show whether the advertised conservation order survives in practical multi-D simulations.
  • The authors note that high-order advection of ξ and E0 needs a dedicated treatment; a concrete test would be to couple the auxiliary-field discretization to the reconstruction order and measure whether global energy conservation improves accordingly.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Real Fluid Quasi-Conservative (RFQC) finite volume method for the one-dimensional Euler equations with arbitrary real-fluid equations of state. Following the Abgrall–Shyue quasi-conservative framework, it advects two locally frozen thermodynamic coefficients, ξ = 1/Γ and E0, reconstructs an oscillation-free pressure from the evolved coefficients, and then re-projects the conserved variables onto the true equation of state. The authors derive an asymptotic expansion for the energy-conservation error introduced by this re-projection, claiming that in smooth regions it is second-order in the time step and globally first-order, while at discontinuities it is controlled by the entropy increase and therefore consistent with the truncation error of shock-capturing schemes. The method is verified on Peng–Robinson n-dodecane problems: a smooth density-wave advection test, three exact Riemann problems (transcritical, complete and incomplete flash evaporation, subcritical impingement), and a shock-interface interaction case where the method remains stable while pressure-based and double-flux methods fail.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the RFQC method would be a useful and simple alternative to double-flux and pressure-based methods for transcritical and phase-change real-fluid flows. It avoids the flux-inconsistency error of double-flux methods, does not require ad-hoc shock sensors, and is formulated for arbitrary equations of state. The paper's strengths include a transparent derivation of the pressure-oscillation mechanism, an explicit error expansion, and a demanding set of test problems with exact Riemann benchmarks. The smooth-flow convergence study in §4.1 is a good check of the local error analysis. However, as detailed below, the discontinuous-region conservation claim is not supported by a proof or by grid-convergence data, and the smooth-region analysis neglects errors that are first-order for the implemented scheme.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (30) and final paragraph] The local error expansion gives ε_p = ψ_s^n Δs + O(Δp²). At a captured shock, Δs tends to the physical entropy jump, which is O(1) and mesh-independent, so the local per-cell re-projection error is O(1), not O(Δx). The statement that the 'integrated error remains of the same order as the inherent truncation error of the shock-capturing scheme' is asserted without a summation, weak-form, or discrete conservation argument. A non-conservative O(1) local source at a discontinuity can, in principle, shift the shock speed by an O(1) amount. The Riemann tests in §§4.2–4.4 are all at N=500 and compare profiles against the exact solution; they do not establish convergence of the shock position or of the cumulative energy error with grid refinement. Please add a grid-convergence study for a shock case (e.g., total energy error and shock location vs. Δx) or provide the missing integrated bound.
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (28)] The analysis assumes that the advection equations for ξ and E0 are solved exactly along streamlines ('neglecting discretization higher-order errors'). However, the numerical implementation uses a first-order Godunov/upwind scheme for these equations, so the advection discretization error is O(Δx), not higher-order. These O(Δx) errors enter p^{n+1} through Eq. (18) and therefore influence the re-projection error; they are not bounded in the paper. Consequently, the claimed O(Δt²) local / O(Δt) global error for smooth regions is not proven for the implemented first-order algorithm. The numerical convergence test in §4.1 provides favorable empirical evidence for one smooth case, but it does not replace a general error estimate. Please either extend the error analysis to include the upwind advection error, or state clearly that the theorem applies to exact streamline advection and give addit
  3. [§3.2, Eqs. (15)–(16), and Conclusion] The decomposition ρe = pξ + E0 depends on the arbitrary internal-energy reference state e_ref through h = e + p/ρ and therefore through ξ. The paper acknowledges this dependence ('an appropriate reference state should be selected' and 'Numerical experience suggests that the choice ... influences the algorithm's numerical characteristics'), but no criterion for selecting e_ref is given and no sensitivity study is reported. Since all computational examples use a single value of e_ref, it is unclear whether the favorable behavior of RFQC is robust to this free parameter. Please demonstrate invariance under shifts of e_ref, if it holds, or provide a sensitivity scan over reasonable reference states for at least one of the Riemann problems.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The line 'AbstractAbstractA new Real Fluid...' appears to duplicate the word 'Abstract' and should be corrected.
  2. [§4.2–4.4] The simulation times are stated as '800 ms' and '500 ms' for domains of length 1 m with velocities of order tens of m/s. These are inconsistent with the stated CFL number and grid size; likely the intended units are μs or ms with different magnitude. Please verify and correct.
  3. [Figure 8] Subplots (b) and (c) are both labeled 'Velocity'. Subplot (c) appears to show a different quantity (possibly temperature or pressure). Please relabel correctly.
  4. [§4.5] The failure of the DF and PB methods in the shock-interface interaction case is described but no plots or quantitative diagnostics are shown. A brief description of the failure mode (e.g., first negative temperature or NaN location) would help the reader judge the severity.
  5. [References [30, 37]] The exact Riemann solutions used as benchmarks come from the authors' own previous works. The paper would be stronger if it noted any independent validation of those exact-solution algorithms or provided enough detail to reproduce them without citing unpublished/preprint sources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the re-projection error is a Taylor remainder of the exact EoS, and the method's claims are not fitted to its benchmarks.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The oscillation-free property is constructed: with ξ=h/c^2 and E0=ρe−pξ, advecting ξ,E0 and reconstructing p=(ρe−E0)/ξ makes p=p0 across a contact by linearity; this is an algebraic design condition (Abgrall/Shyue), not a fit. The §3.4 error analysis defines ψ(p,s)=(ρe)_real, uses the exact identity ψ_p=h/c^2=ξ, and obtains ε_p as the Taylor remainder ψ^{n+1}−[ψ^n+ψ_p^n Δp]; the quoted O(Δt^2) smooth-region and ψ_s Δs shock-region terms are this remainder, not a parameter fitted to data. The exact Riemann solutions used for validation come from the authors' previous papers [30,37], but those solvers are parameter-free under stated HEM/VLE and Peng-Robinson assumptions and do not embed RFQC outputs, so the self-citation is validation context, not a load-bearing circular input. The gaps noted by a skeptical reader—unbounded O(Δx) advection errors in Eq. (28), and the unintegrated O(1) per-cell entropy term at captured shocks—are correctness/analysis gaps, not cases where a predicted quantity is equal by construction to an input. The paper also acknowledges the internal-energy-reference sensitivity as an open issue, which is a robustness limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The scheme introduces no new physics, but rests on the HEM/VLE closure, on an unproven discrete pressure-equilibrium property of the frozen-linearization advection, on a Taylor-expansion smoothness assumption across phase boundaries, and on a hand-picked internal-energy reference state.

free parameters (1)
  • Internal energy reference state e_ref = 1×10^6 J/kg (Table 8)
    The value of ξ = h/c^2 depends on the zero of internal energy. The paper states 'an appropriate reference state should be selected to ensure favorable mathematical properties' and later notes the choice influences numerical behavior. e_ref is taken from a cited source, not derived, and is a free knob of the method.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Homogeneous Equilibrium Model and Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium: the fluid is a single-phase or two-phase mixture in instantaneous thermal, mechanical, and chemical equilibrium.
    Adopted in Section 2 (Eq. 1 and Appendix A) to close the Euler equations; the method's accuracy for real phase-change flows is conditional on this model.
  • domain assumption The local linearization relation ρe = pξ + E0 with ξ=h/c^2, E0=ρe-pξ, matches the real EoS to first order in pressure along an isentrope and can be evolved via advection equations to maintain pressure equilibrium.
    Section 3.2-3.3 extends Shyue's stiffened-gas advection equations to arbitrary EoS by freezing coefficients. The discrete Abgrall-consistency for this frozen/advected linearization is not proven for the full scheme with re-projection.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of advection discretization errors in the error analysis (Eq. 28).
    The analysis sets (ξ)_temp^{n+1}=ξ^n and (E0)_temp^{n+1}=E0^n, 'neglecting discretization higher-order errors.' For a first-order scheme these errors are O(Δx), so the claimed order of the total energy error may not hold.
  • domain assumption Smoothness of the internal-energy potential ψ(p,s) up to second derivatives in the Taylor expansion (Eq. 26).
    At first-order phase boundaries the sound speed and thermodynamic derivatives can jump; the paper still applies the second-order Taylor expansion in cells whose state crosses the saturation line. This is not justified.
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary fields ξ and E0 (frozen thermodynamic coefficients)
    purpose: Provide a locally tangent, linear internal-energy–pressure relation that can be advected to reconstruct an oscillation-free pressure during each time step.
    These are algorithm-defined fields, not physical entities. They are recomputed from the EoS at the end of every step (thermodynamic re-projection), so they carry no falsifiable predictions outside the method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Oscillation-Free Real Fluid Quasi-Conservative Finite Volume Method for Transcritical and Phase-Change Flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G3DRQYOR

@misc{pith2026260200658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Oscillation-Free Real Fluid Quasi-Conservative Finite Volume Method for Transcritical and Phase-Change Flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G3DRQYOR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.00658}
}
abstract

A new Real Fluid Quasi-Conservative (RFQC) finite volume method is developed to address the numerical simulation of real fluids involving shock waves in transcritical and phase-change flows. To eliminate the spurious pressure oscillations inherent in fully conservative schemes, we extend the classic quasi-conservative method, originally designed for two-phase flows, to real fluids governed by arbitrary equations of state (EoS). The RFQC method locally linearizes the real fluid EoS at each grid point and time step, constructing and evolving the frozen Gr\"uneisen coefficient $\Gamma$ and the linearization remainder $E_0$ via two advection equations. At the end of each time step, the evolved $\Gamma$ and $E_0$ are utilized to reconstruct the oscillation-free pressure field, followed by a thermodynamic re-projection applied to the conserved variables. Theoretical analysis demonstrates that, in smooth regions, the energy conservation error introduced by the RFQC method is a second-order small term dominated by the time-step. In discontinuous regions, this error is determined by the entropy increase rate, thereby maintaining consistency with the inherent truncation error of shock-capturing methods. A series of numerical tests verifies that the method can robustly simulate complex flow processes with only minor energy conservation errors, including transcritical flows, phase transitions, and shock-interface interactions. The RFQC method is proven to be both accurate and robust in capturing shock waves and phase transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00658 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fuel spray and phase diagram It is well established that traditional conservative schemes often induce severe non￾physical pressure oscillations when simulating transcritical real-fluid flows. This issue arises from the high nonlinearity of the equation of state (EoS), leading to computational errors or even numerical instability [9, 10]. This phenomenon is analogous to the spuri￾ous oscillations observed at phase i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of frozen thermodynamic coefficients between the two methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Verification of Energy Conservation Error in Smooth Advection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of the Transcritical RP Calculation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of the Completely Evaporated FeRP Calculation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of the Incompletely Evaporated FeRP Calculation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of the Subcritical Fluid Impinging RP Calculation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results of the Shock-Interface Interaction Calculation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    T. Tang, Z. Wang, J. Yu, et al., Numerical study of transverse jet mixing and combustion in a high-enthalpy supersonic crossflow with trace gases, Phys. Fluids 35 (3) (2023) 036120

    2023

  2. [2]

    F. Li, T.Y. Wang, K. Yang, J.C. Zhang, H.B. Wang, M.B. Sun, Z.G. Wang, P.B. Li, Effect of fuel temperature on mixing characteristics of a kerosene jet injected into a cavity-based supersonic combustor, Phys. Fluids 35 (4) (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    F. Li, P.B. Li, X. Liu, H.B. Wang, M.B. Sun, Z.G. Wang, F. Li, J.C. Zhang, X.L. Yang, Numerical study on spray characteristics of liquid jets in supersonic crossflow, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 141 (2023) 108543

    2023

  4. [4]

    P. Yi, S.Z. Yang, C. Habchi, R. Lugo, A multicomponent real-fluid fully compress- ible four-equation model for two-phase flow with phase change, Phys. Fluids 31 (2) (2019) 026102

    2019

  5. [5]

    P. Yi, Y. Cong, Y. Fu, et al., Condensation characteristics of liquid ammonia direct injection under diesel engine-like conditions, Energy 328 (2025) 136551. 24

    2025

  6. [6]

    Y. Cong, Y. Fu, P. Yi, et al., Comparative analysis of condensation characteristics in diesel and liquid ammonia sprays under high-pressure direct injection conditions, Energy 344 (2026) 139953

    2026

  7. [7]

    M. Popp, J. Hulka, V. Yang, M. Habiballah, Liquid Rocket Thrust Chambers: As- pects of Modeling, Analysis, and Design, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, vol. 200, AIAA, 2004

    2004

  8. [8]

    Caz´ e, F

    J. Caz´ e, F. Petitpas, E. Daniel, M. Queguineur, S. Le Martelot, Modeling and simulation of the cavitation phenomenon in turbopumps, J. Comput. Phys. 502 (2024) 112817

    2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Terashima, M

    H. Terashima, M. Koshi, Approach for simulating gas-liquid-like flows under su- percritical pressures using a high-order central differenceencing scheme, J. Comput. Phys. 231 (20) (2012) 6907–6923

    2012

  2. [10]

    P.C. Ma, Y. Lv, M. Ihme, An entropy-stable hybrid scheme for simulations of transcritical real-fluid flows, J. Comput. Phys. 340 (2017) 330–357

    2017

  3. [11]

    Abgrall, How to prevent pressure oscillations in multicomponent flow calcula- tions: A quasi conservative approach, J

    R. Abgrall, How to prevent pressure oscillations in multicomponent flow calcula- tions: A quasi conservative approach, J. Comput. Phys. 125 (1) (1996) 150–160

    1996

  4. [12]

    Abgrall, S

    R. Abgrall, S. Karni, Computations of compressible multifluids, J. Comput. Phys. 169 (2) (2001) 594–623

    2001

  5. [13]

    Karni, Viscous shock profiles and primitive formulations, SIAM J

    S. Karni, Viscous shock profiles and primitive formulations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 29 (6) (1992) 1592–1609

    1992

  6. [14]

    Karni, Multicomponent flow calculations by a consistent primitive algorithm, J

    S. Karni, Multicomponent flow calculations by a consistent primitive algorithm, J. Comput. Phys. 112 (1) (1994) 31–43

    1994

  7. [15]

    Kawai, H

    S. Kawai, H. Terashima, H. Negishi, A robust and accurate numerical method for transcritical turbulent flows at supercritical pressure with an arbitrary equation of state, J. Comput. Phys. 300 (2015) 116–135

    2015

  8. [16]

    Kitamura, E

    K. Kitamura, E. Shima, Pressure-equation-based SLAU2 for oscillation-free, super- critical flow simulations, Comput. Fluids 163 (2018) 86–96

    2018

  9. [17]

    Lacaze, T

    G. Lacaze, T. Schmitt, et al., Comparison of energy-, pressure- and enthalpy-based approaches for modeling supercritical flows, Comput. Fluids 181 (2019) 35–56

    2019

  10. [18]

    Rodriguez, A

    C. Rodriguez, A. Vidal, P. Koukouvinis, M. Gavaises, M.A. McHugh, Simulation of transcritical fluid jets using the PC-SAFT EOS, J. Comput. Phys. 374 (2018) 444–468

    2018

  11. [19]

    Yatsuyanagi, T

    S. Yatsuyanagi, T. Furusawa, S. Yamamoto, Double-flux model for supercritical multicomponent flows at low Mach numbers with preconditioning method, J. Com- put. Phys. 458 (2022) 111091. 25

    2022

  12. [20]

    Karni, Hybrid multifluid algorithms, SIAM J

    S. Karni, Hybrid multifluid algorithms, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 17 (5) (1996) 1019– 1039

    1996

  13. [21]

    B. Xu, Y. Chen, Z. Wang, et al., An adaptive primitive-conservative scheme for high speed transcritical flow with an arbitrary equation of state, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11639 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B. Xu, C. Sun, P. Guo, A central differential flux with high-order dissipation for robust simulations of transcritical flows, J. Comput. Phys. 550 (2026) 114653

    2026

  15. [23]

    Ching, R.F

    E.J. Ching, R.F. Johnson, A.D. Kercher, A note on reducing spurious pressure oscil- lations in fully conservative discontinuous Galerkin simulations of multicomponent flows, (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Ching, R.F

    E.J. Ching, R.F. Johnson, A.D. Kercher, Conservative, pressure-equilibrium- preserving discontinuous Galerkin method for compressible, multicomponent flows, (2025) [Preprint]

    2025

  17. [25]

    Fujiwara, Y

    Y. Fujiwara, Y. Tamaki, S. Kawai, Fully conservative and pressure-equilibrium preserving scheme for compressible multi-component flows, J. Comput. Phys. 478 (2023) 111973

    2023

  18. [26]

    Terashima, N

    H. Terashima, N. Ly, M. Ihme, Approximately pressure-equilibrium-preserving scheme for fully conservative simulations of compressible multi-species and real- fluid interfacial flows, J. Comput. Phys. 524 (2025) 113701

    2025

  19. [27]

    Shyue, An efficient shock-capturing algorithm for compressible multicompo- nent problems, J

    K.-M. Shyue, An efficient shock-capturing algorithm for compressible multicompo- nent problems, J. Comput. Phys. 142 (1) (1998) 208–242

    1998

  20. [28]

    Johnsen, T

    E. Johnsen, T. Colonius, Implementation of WENO schemes in compressible mul- ticomponent flow problems, J. Comput. Phys. 219 (2) (2006) 715–732

    2006

  21. [29]

    D. Peng, D. Robinson, A new two-constant equation of state, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 15 (1) (1976) 59–64

    1976

  22. [30]

    H. Bai, P. Yi, Y. Yang, G. Zhao, W. Xie, M. Sun, Flash evaporation Riemann Prob- lem: Formulation and its Exact Solution, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18404(2026)

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Brennen, Fundamentals of Multiphase Flow, Cambridge University Press, 2005

    C.E. Brennen, Fundamentals of Multiphase Flow, Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    Toro, Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd edn., Springer, 2009

    E.F. Toro, Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd edn., Springer, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Shyue, A fluid-mixture type algorithm for compressible multicomponent flow with Mie–Gr¨ uneisen equation of state, J

    K.-M. Shyue, A fluid-mixture type algorithm for compressible multicomponent flow with Mie–Gr¨ uneisen equation of state, J. Comput. Phys. 171 (2) (2001) 678–707. 26

    2001

  26. [34]

    Zhang, N

    H.Y. Zhang, N. Srinivasan, S. Yang, In situ adaptive tabulation of vapor-liquid equi- librium solutions for multi-component high-pressure transcritical flows with phase change, J. Comput. Phys. 500 (2024) 112752

    2024

  27. [35]

    Srinivasan, S

    N. Srinivasan, S. Yang, Artificial neural network aided vapor–liquid equilibrium model for multi-component high-pressure transcritical flows with phase change, Phys. Fluids 36 (8) (2024) 083328

    2024

  28. [36]

    Redlich, J

    O. Redlich, J. Kwong, On the thermodynamics of solutions; An equation of state; Fugacities of gaseous solutions, Chem. Rev. 44 (1) (1949) 233–237

    1949

  29. [37]

    Bai, Y.X

    H. Bai, Y.X. Yang, W.J. Xie, D.J. Li, M.B. Sun, Exact solutions for the transcritical Riemann problem of two-parameter fluids, Appl. Math. Mech. (Engl. Ed.) (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Menikoff, B.J

    R. Menikoff, B.J. Plohr, The Riemann problem for fluid flow of real materials, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 75–130

    1989

  31. [39]

    Sedov, Mechanics of a Continuous Medium, Nauka, 1973

    L.I. Sedov, Mechanics of a Continuous Medium, Nauka, 1973

    1973

  32. [40]

    Guardone, B.M

    A. Guardone, B.M. Argrow, Nonclassical gasdynamic region of selected fluorocar- bons, Phys. Fluids 17 (2005) 116102

    2005

  33. [41]

    NIST, NIST Chemistry WebBook, http://webbook.nist.gov, 2023. 27

    2023

Pith tools

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