Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Versatile SPH Open Boundary Conditions for Multiphase Flows in Extreme Condition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two fixes—inflow density relaxation and an outflow shifting limiter—let SPH handle multiphase channel flows at density ratios up to 1000 and Reynolds numbers near 400,000.

desk verdict A workmanlike SPH open-boundary methods paper with solid laminar benchmarks and one serious 2D-vs-3D validation gap in its headline slug-flow claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14500 v1 pith:MWIN4RAN submitted 2025-06-17 physics.flu-dyn physics.comp-ph

Zi-Yang Zhan , Zhen Chen This is my paper
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.comp-ph MSC 76M2876T3076F65 PACS 47.11.-j47.55.Ca
keywords SmoothedParticleHydrodynamicsopenboundaryconditionsmultiphaseflowweaklycompressibleSPHshiftingtechniquedensityrelaxationturbulencemodelingslug
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 claims that two targeted open-boundary treatments turn weakly compressible SPH into a general solver for multiphase channel flows with inflow and outflow boundaries. The first, a density relaxation applied to newly emitted inflow particles, damps pressure oscillation where particles enter; the second, a quadratic limiter on the streamwise component of the particle shifting vector, suppresses velocity surges near the outlet. With both treatments the method reproduces analytic Poiseuille and immiscible co-current flow solutions, matches experimental turbulent channel profiles under both LES and k-ε closures, and recovers the measured slug frequency of a horizontal air–water channel experiment at density ratios up to 1000 and Reynolds numbers up to about 400,000. If correct, the claim matters because it removes a known obstacle—open-boundary instability in extreme flow states—from SPH simulation of oil/gas and similar engineering flows.

What carries the argument

The key objects are two parameterized formulas plus one adaptivity rule. The inflow density relaxation, $\tilde{\rho}_i = \kappa_i \rho_{0,i} + (1-\kappa_i)\rho_i$, is a rearrangement of a pressure relaxation through the Tait equation of state, so it applies to single-phase and multiphase flow without extra extrapolation from the fluid domain. The outflow limiter, $\delta r_i^p \leftarrow \delta r_i^p \cdot \gamma \left((x_{\text{out}} - x_i)/L_{\text{out}}\right)^2$, imposes a quadratic decay on the streamwise component of the particle shifting vector, which the paper shows emulates the free-surface correction of δplus-SPH, a particle-regularized δ-SPH variant, without requiring free-surface detection. The adaptivity rule sets the shifting magnitude from a phase-weighted maximum velocity $u'_{\max} = u_{\max,1}\varphi(i) + u_{\max,2}(1-\varphi(i))$, with $\varphi(i)$ a smoothed color function, so the correction is neither too strong in the light phase nor too weak in the heavy phase. These formulas carry the argument because the validation cases are designed as controlled comparisons with and without each treatment.

What would settle it

Run the proposed algorithm in three dimensions on the horizontal slug-flow configuration of Section 5.2 (channel diameter 0.1 m, length 80 diameters, air and water phases), and compare the characteristic slug frequency read from the pressure-probe power spectrum with the experimental value the paper reports; if the three-dimensional frequency or the wave-growth sequence departs substantially from the experiment, the generality claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the open-boundary instabilities of multiphase WCSPH in channels come from two localized mechanisms and can be cured by two localized modifications without altering the bulk discretization. At the inflow, the paper divides the boundary particles into emitter and buffer sets: emitter particles receive a density relaxation $\tilde{\rho}_i = \kappa_i \rho_{0,i} + (1-\kappa_i)\rho_i$ with $\kappa=0.3$, which acts as a damper on the density variation $\delta\rho_i$; buffer particles receive a velocity relaxation toward the target stream velocity with coefficient $\epsilon=0.3$, so that injected particles acquire their full degrees of freedom gradually. At the outflow, the streamwise component of the particle shifting vector is multiplied by $\gamma \left((x_{\text{out}} - x_i)/L_{\text{out}}\right)^2$, forcing the shifting correction to vanish quadratically as a particle approaches the outlet while the tangential component is preserved; the shifting amplitude is also made phase-dependent through a smoothed color function and per-phase maximum velocities. The paper isolates the contribution of each modification in the co-current flow and turbulent channel benchmarks, showing that removing either one reintroduces anomalous velocity growth, and then demonstrates the combined algorithm on turbulent multiphase channel flow at Reynolds number 400,000 with density ratios 10, 100, and 1000, and on a horizontal slug flow whose pressure power spectrum converges to the experimental characteristic frequency.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of generality rests on the assumption that the two-dimensional simulations used for all validations represent the three-dimensional pipe and channel flows of the intended engineering applications, since the slug-flow benchmark is a horizontal pipe experiment and the turbulent multiphase case is checked only by self-convergence of velocity profiles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multiphase channel flows with open boundaries become accessible to standard WCSPH codes at density ratios up to 1000 and bulk Reynolds numbers up to about 400,000 without artificial viscosity.
  • Because the two treatments modify only the boundary handling, they can be adopted directly in existing inflow–outflow SPH implementations with minimal code changes.
  • Both LES and k-ε turbulence closures couple stably with the open boundaries, as shown by convergence toward the experimental turbulent channel profile at Reynolds number 12,300.
  • The reproduction of the slug-flow pressure frequency suggests the method can capture the characteristic intermittency of gas–liquid channel flows, relevant to oil/gas transport and reactor cooling.
  • The color-function-weighted shifting amplitude provides a general multiphase form of PST that reduces to the standard single-phase form automatically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because every validation in the paper is two-dimensional, the natural next test is a three-dimensional version of the slug-flow benchmark; if the 3D slug frequency matches the experiment as well as the 2D one, the generality claim becomes much stronger.
  • The relaxation coefficients κ=0.3 and ε=0.3 are given as suggested values; a systematic sweep over Reynolds number, density ratio, and channel length would show whether the stability margin persists outside the tested range.
  • The outflow limiter's quadratic form is analogous to the free-surface correction of δplus-SPH but without interface detection; that structural similarity suggests it may be transferable to other particle-regularization schemes such as transport-velocity formulations.
  • For the density-ratio-1000 turbulent multiphase case, the interface distortion is explained by a Bernoulli effect and validated only by self-convergence; an external comparison against resolved experiments or DNS would be needed to confirm the physics rather than just the stability.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a weakly compressible SPH (WCSPH) solver with open-boundary treatments for multiphase channel flows. Two stabilization techniques are proposed: a density relaxation applied to inflow (emitter/buffer) particles, derived by rewriting a pressure relaxation under the Tait equation of state, and an outflow limiter that dampens the streamwise component of the particle-shifting vector near the outlet. Turbulence is modeled with both LES and k-ε closures. The method is tested on four benchmark cases: single-phase Poiseuille flow, two-fluid Poiseuille flow, immiscible two-phase co-current flow with density ratios up to 1000, and 2D turbulent channel flow compared with Laufer's data. Robustness is then claimed through a turbulent multiphase channel flow (density ratio up to 1000, Re≈400,000) and a horizontal slug-channel flow compared with the experiment of Höhne and Mehlhoop.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a practical contribution: stable open-boundary SPH simulations of multiphase channel flows at large density ratios and high Reynolds numbers, with only two local modifications to a conventional open-boundary scheme. The paper has notable strengths: the benchmark comparisons against analytic solutions (Sections 4.1–4.3) and against Laufer's turbulent channel data (Section 4.4) are genuine external validations, the density-relaxation derivation in Eqs. (23)–(27) is transparent and reduces to a pressure relaxation under an explicit assumption, and the relaxation coefficients are not fitted to the target slug-flow data. The main weakness is that all validations are 2D, the turbulent multiphase case is validated only by self-convergence, and the only violent multiphase external comparison (the slug flow) does not provide a quantitative overlay of the experimental frequency. These gaps limit the support for the general 3D engineering claim made in the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Figs. 27–30] The horizontal slug-flow validation is a 2D simulation compared with the 3D pipe experiment of Höhne and Mehlhoop [4]. The manuscript never states how the 2D confinement affects slug frequency, film drainage, or interfacial wave growth, and Fig. 30 does not overlay the experimental frequency or even report its numerical value. Consequently, the sentence 'the characteristic slug frequency converges to the experimental value' cannot be checked from the manuscript. Because this case carries the main burden of demonstrating robustness in a violent multiphase open-boundary scenario, the authors should either provide a 3D simulation with the same setup or, at minimum, give the experimental frequency value, overlay it on the PSD plots, and discuss the expected 2D-versus-3D differences.
  2. [Section 5.1, Figs. 22–24] The turbulent multiphase channel flow with density ratio 1000 is validated only by self-convergence of the sampled velocity profiles with respect to sampling duration, sampling location, and spatial resolution. There is no comparison to an experiment, DNS, or independent numerical solution. This demonstrates stability of the proposed algorithm but not accuracy; the paper's broader claim of 'accurate, stable and robust solutions' at Re≈400,000 and density ratio 1000 therefore rests on the lower-Reynolds-number benchmarks plus the 2D slug case, which is insufficient for the general claim.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (32)] The inflow relaxation coefficients κ and ε are fixed at suggested values (κ=0.3, ε=1.0 for emitter particles; κ=0.0, ε=0.3 for buffer particles) with no sensitivity study or selection criterion. These coefficients directly control the strength of the proposed stabilization, and 'versatility' is a central claim of the paper. The authors should demonstrate that reasonable variations of these values do not change the benchmark results qualitatively, or provide a principled rule for choosing them in a new problem.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Fig. 30] Please include the experimental characteristic slug frequency from Ref. [4] in the figure or in the text; the current presentation is qualitative and the claimed convergence cannot be assessed.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (37)] The definition of γ as 'the ratio of the length of the outflow region and the fluid region' is ambiguous; please define L_fluid explicitly in terms of the inlet/outlet geometry and state whether it is the total streamwise length of the computational domain or the fluid-region length only.
  3. [Section 4.4, Eq. (40)] The text refers to 'ref. [56]' for the wall function and says 'whose definition can be found in ref.' for the friction velocity; please provide the explicit formula for u_τ and the exact source in Eq. (40) so that the implementation is reproducible.
  4. [General editorial] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'of of particles classification' in the Fig. 1 caption, the unusual unit notation 'mPa•s', and inconsistent rendering of equations in the submitted PDF; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the proposed treatments are algebraic reformulations or geometric dampers validated against external analytical and experimental benchmarks, and no prediction is forced by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. The inflow density relaxation (Eqs. 23-27) is explicitly derived by rewriting a prior pressure relaxation using the equation of state and the assumption that the reference pressure approximates the background pressure; this is an algebraic transformation of existing methodology, not a prediction obtained from the target data. The outflow PST limiter (Eq. 37) is an ad hoc geometric damping factor with no hidden dependence on the benchmark outputs. The relaxation coefficients (Eq. 32) are fixed suggested values rather than parameters fitted to the validation cases. Accuracy is checked against external analytical solutions for Poiseuille, two-fluid Poiseuille, and immiscible co-current flows, and against the experimental data of Laufer and Höhne & Mehlhoop for turbulent and slug-flow cases. The self-citations to Refs. [25] and [26] supply base SPH stabilization components from prior work; they are not used to justify the central claim or to import a uniqueness theorem. The main concerns about the slug-flow validation (2D geometry versus 3D pipe experiment, and the absence of an overlaid experimental frequency in Fig. 30) are correctness and transferability issues, not circularity.

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

The method relies on standard SPH closures (weak compressibility, delta-SPH diffusion, Smagorinsky and k-epsilon turbulence, ghost-particle walls), two hand-selected relaxation coefficients, and the modeling choice that 2D simulations represent the reference pipe and channel experiments. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Inflow density relaxation coefficient kappa (emitter) = 0.3
    Eq. (32). Hand-selected to damp density fluctuations at the inlet; no sensitivity study is given, and the stability benefit is only shown at this value.
  • Inflow velocity relaxation coefficient epsilon (emitter) = 1.0
    Eq. (32). Emitter particles are constrained to the target velocity; this choice removes one degree of freedom during preprocessing and is not varied or optimized.
  • Buffer velocity relaxation coefficient epsilon (buffer) = 0.3
    Eq. (32). Buffer particles are partially pulled to the target velocity; the value is suggested without sensitivity analysis.
  • Outflow limiter exponent and scaling = exponent 2, scaling gamma
    Eq. (37). The quadratic damping of the parallel particle-shifting component and the gamma scaling are chosen heuristically, with no derivation or sensitivity study.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Weak compressibility with Tait EoS and a single artificial sound speed for both phases (Eqs. 2-3).
    Section 2. This is the standard WCSPH premise; using the same c_s for both phases is an additional modeling choice that could affect high-density-ratio accuracy.
  • domain assumption The reference pressure at the inflow region is approximately the background pressure p0 (Section 3.1, Eqs. 23-27).
    This assumption makes the density relaxation mathematically equivalent to the intended pressure relaxation; if it fails, the treatment is not doing what is claimed.
  • domain assumption Turbulent closure via Smagorinsky LES or k-epsilon RANS with wall functions from single-phase channel flow.
    Section 2.2 and Section 4.4. These models are imported from prior literature and applied to multiphase cases without re-validation.
  • domain assumption 2D simulations capture the physics of the reference pipe and channel experiments.
    Sections 5.1 and 5.2. The slug flow experiment is a pipe flow; the turbulent multiphase case has no external 3D reference.
  • standard math Fixed ghost particles with Shepard pressure extrapolation provide a correct no-slip wall condition.
    Section 2.3. Standard SPH wall treatment; the paper does not re-derive it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Versatile SPH Open Boundary Conditions for Multiphase Flows in Extreme Condition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWIN4RAN

@misc{pith2026250614500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Versatile SPH Open Boundary Conditions for Multiphase Flows in Extreme Condition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWIN4RAN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14500}
}
read the original abstract

Although the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method has been demonstrated as a promising numerical solver for multiphase flow problems due to its Lagrangian nature, its application to complex channel flow may encounter additional issues such as the open boundary condition and numerical instability in the extreme flow state. The present work aims to establish a general SPH algorithm for accurate and stable simulation of complex multiphase flows in configurations with open boundaries. The general scheme of weakly compressible SPH is adopted with special treatments implemented to ease the numerical oscillation in the density discontinuity scenario, and the turbulent model is implemented for interpretations of extreme flow conditions in high Reynolds numbers. Then, the conventional open boundary condition is fine-tuned by two new algorithms to guarantee the numerical stability in the inflow and the outflow regions. Firstly, a density relaxation is proposed to alleviate the pressure instability in the inflow region, which improves the smoothness of the particle pre-processing procedure. Secondly, the particle shifting technique with adaptive damper is implemented to adjust the magnitude of correction in the outflow region, which helps to suppress the velocity oscillation near the outlet. Validations of the proposed algorithms are carried out through four classic numerical examples, presenting appealing agreements with the analytical solutions and thus demonstrating the versatility in various flow conditions. Then, the robustness of the method is established through the turbulent multiphase channel flow cases and the horizontal slug channel flow with large density ratios. These results shed light on the value of the proposed algorithm as a general solver for complex multiphase flow problems with open boundaries.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Höhne, J

    T. Höhne, J. Mehlhoop, Validation of closure models for interfacial drag and turbulence in numerical simulations of horizontal stratified gas – liquid flows, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 62 (2014) 1 - 16. https://doi.or g/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2014.01.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2014.01.012 2014

  2. [1]

    Woods, T.J

    B.D. Woods, T.J. Hanratty, Influence of froude number on physical processes determining frequency of slugging in horizontal gas – liquid flows, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 25 (6) (1999) 1195 - 1223. https://doi.org/https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/S0301 - 9322(99)00058 - 0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0301 1999

  3. [2]

    Vallée, T

    C. Vallée, T. Höhne, H. Prasser, T. Sühnel, Experimental investigation and cfd simulation of horizontal stratified two - phase flow phenomena, Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (3) (2008) 637 - 646. https://doi.org/https://doi.or g/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2007.02.051

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2007.02.051 2008

  4. [3]

    Abdulkadir, V

    M. Abdulkadir, V. Hernandez - Perez, I.S. Lowndes, B.J. Azzopardi, E. Sam - Mbomah, Experimental study of the hydrodynamic behaviour of slug flow in a horizontal pipe, Chem. Eng. Sci. 156 (2016) 147 - 161. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2016.09.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ces.2016.09.015 2016

  5. [5]

    Ghafari, M.B

    M. Ghafari, M.B. Ghofrani, New turbulence modeling for air/water stratified flow, J. Ocean Eng. Sci. 5 (1) (2020) 55 -

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Kopparthy, M

    S. Kopparthy, M. Mansour, G. Janiga, D. Thévenin, Numerical investigations of turbulent single - phase and two - phase flows in a diffuser, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 130 (2020) 103333. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2020.103333

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Baker, Mesh adaptation strategies for problems in fluid dynamics, Finite Elem

    T.J. Baker, Mesh adaptation strategies for problems in fluid dynamics, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 25 (3) (1997) 243 -

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Osher, R.A

    S.A. Osher, R.A. Fedkiw, K.R. Piechor, Level set methods and dynamic implic it surfaces, Appl. Mech. Rev. 57 (3) (2004) B15. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1760520

    doi:10.1115/1.1760520 2004

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Veldman, J

    A.E.P. Veldman, J. Gerrits, R. Luppes, J.A. Helder, J.P.B. Vreeburg, The numerical simulation of liquid sloshing 40 on board spacecraft, J. Comput. Phys. 224 (1) (2007) 8 2 - 99. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2006.12.020

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    Gingold, J.J

    R.A. Gingold, J.J. Monaghan, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non - spherical stars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 181 (3) (1977) 375 - 389

    1977

  3. [11]

    Liu, M.B

    G.R. Liu, M.B. Liu, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: a meshfree particle method, World scientific, 2003

    2003

  4. [12]

    Lucy, A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis, Astronomical Journal, vol

    L.B. Lucy, A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis, Astronomical Journal, vol. 82, Dec. 1977, p. 1013 -

    1977

  5. [13]

    Monag han, Simulating free surface flows with sph, J

    J.J. Monag han, Simulating free surface flows with sph, J. Comput. Phys. 110 (2) (1994) 399 - 406. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1994.1034

    1994

  6. [14]

    Marrone, M

    S. Marrone, M. Antuono, A. Colagrossi, G. Colicchio, D. Le Touzé, G. Graziani, Δ - sph model for simulating vio lent impact flows, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 200 (13 -

  7. [15]

    Molteni, A

    D. Molteni, A. Colagrossi, A simple procedure to improve the pressure evaluation in hydrodynamic context using the sph, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (6) (2009) 861 - 872. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2008.12.004

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.12.016

    (2011) 1526 - 1542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.12.016

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    Monaghan, R.A

    J.J. Monaghan, R.A. Gingold, Shock simulation by the particle method sph, J. Comput. Phys. 52 (2) (1983) 374 -

    1983

  10. [18]

    R. Xu, P. Stansby, D. Laurence, Accuracy and stability in incompressible sph (isph) based on the projection method and a new approach, J. Comput. Phys. 228 (18) (2009) 6703 - 6725. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.05.032

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    S.J. Lind, R. Xu, P.K. Stansby, B.D. Rogers, Incompressibl e smoothed particle hydrodynamics for free - surface flows: a generalised diffusion - based algorithm for stability and validations for impulsive flows and propagating waves, J. Comput. Phys. 231 (4) (2012) 1499 - 1523...

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    Antuono, A

    M. Antuono, A. Colagrossi, S. Marrone, D. Molteni, Free - surface flows solved by means of sph schemes with numerical diffusive terms, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (3) (2010) 532 - 549

    2010

  13. [21]

    Colagrossi, M

    A. Colagrossi, M. Landrini, Numerical simulation of interfacial flows by smoothed particle hydrodynamics, J. Comput. Phys. 191 (2) (2003) 448 -

    2003

  14. [22]

    X.Y. Hu, N.A. Adams, A multi - phase sph method for macroscopic and mesoscopic flows, J. Comput. Phys. 213 (2) (2006) 844 -

    2006

  15. [23]

    Grenier, M

    N. Grenier, M. Antuono, A. Colagrossi, D. Le Touzé, B. Alessandrini, An hamiltonian interface sph formulation fo r multi - fluid and free surface flows, J. Comput. Phys. 228 (22) (2009) 8380 - 8393. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.08.009

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    X.Y. Hu, N.A. Adams, An incompressible multi - phase sph method, J. Comput. Phys. 227 (1) (2007) 264 - 278. https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.07.013

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    P.N. Sun, A. Colagrossi, S. Marrone, A.M. Zhang, The δplus - sph model: simple procedures for a further improvement of the sph scheme, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 315 (2017) 25 - 49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2016.1 0.028

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Zheng, Z

    B.X. Zheng, Z. Chen, A multiphase smoothed particle hydrodynamics model with lower numerical diffusion, J. Comput. Phys. 382 (2019) 177 -

    2019

  19. [27]

    Hammani, S

    I. Hammani, S. Marrone, A. Colagrossi, G. Oger, D. Le Touzé, Detailed study on the extension of the δ - sph model to multi - phase flow, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 368 (2020) 113189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2020.113189

    2020

  20. [28]

    Adami, X.Y

    S. Adami, X.Y. Hu, N.A. Adams, A new surface - tension formulation for multi - phase sph using a reproducing divergence approximation, J. Comput. Phys. 229 (13) (2010) 5011 - 5021. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2010.03.022

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    Krimi, M

    A. Krimi, M. Rezoug, S. Khelladi, X. Nogueira, M. Del igant, L. Ramírez, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: a consistent model for interfacial multiphase fluid flow simulations, J. Comput. Phys. 358 (2018) 53 - 87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.12.006

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    C. Guo, H. Zhang, Z. Qian, M. Liu, Smoothed - interface sph model for multiphase fluid - structure interaction, J. Comput. Phys. (2024) 113336. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113336

    2024

  23. [31]

    Rezavand, C

    M. Rezavand, C. Zhang, X. Hu, A weakly compressible sph method for violent multi - phase flows with high density ratio, J. Comput. Phys. 402 (2020) 109092. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2019.109092

    2020

  24. [32]

    Z. Chen, Z. Zong, M.B. Liu, L. Zou, H.T. Li, C. Shu, An sph model for multiphase flows with complex interfaces and large density differences, J. Comput. Phys. 283 (2015) 169 -

    2015

  25. [33]

    Mayrhofer, D

    A. Mayrhofer, D. Laurence, B.D. Rogers, D. Violeau, Dns and les of 3 - d wall - bounded turbulence usi ng smoothed particle hydrodynamics, Comput. Fluids 115 (2015) 86 - 97. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.03.029

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Violeau, R

    D. Violeau, R. Issa, Numerical modelling of complex turbulent free - surface flows with the sph method: an overview, In t. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 53 (2) (2007) 277 - 304. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.1292

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Leroy, D

    A. Leroy, D. Violeau, M. Ferrand, C. Kassiotis, Unified semi - analytical wall boundary conditions applied to 2 - d incompressible sph, J. Comput. Phys. 2 61 (2014) 106 - 129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2013.12.035

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    T. Bao, J. Hu, C. Huang, Y. Yu, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics with κ - ε closure for simulating wall - bounded turbulent flows at medium and high reynolds numbers, Phys. Fluid s 35 (8) (2023) 85114. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0158301

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Di Mascio, M

    A. Di Mascio, M. Antuono, A. Colagrossi, S. Marrone, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics method from a large eddy simulation perspective, Phys. Fluids 29 (3) (2017) 35102. https://doi.org/10.1063/1 .4978274

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Dalrymple, B.D

    R.A. Dalrymple, B.D. Rogers, Numerical modeling of water waves with the sph method, Coast. Eng. 53 (2) (2006) 141 -

    2006

  31. [39]

    Wang, P.L.F

    D. Wang, P.L.F. Liu, An isph with k – ε closure for s imulating turbulence under solitary waves, Coast. Eng. 157 (2020) 103657. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103657

    2020

  32. [40]

    E. Y. M. Lo, S. Shao, Simulation of near - shore solitary wave mechanics by an incompressible sph method, Appl. O cean Res. 24 (5) (2002) 275 -

    2002

  33. [41]

    Meng, P.P

    Z.F. Meng, P.P. Wang, A.M. Zhang, F.R. Ming, P.N. Sun, A multiphase sph model based on roe’s approximate 41 riemann solver for hydraulic flows with complex interface, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 365 (2020) 112999. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2020.112999

    2020

  34. [42]

    Ferrand, A

    M. Ferrand, A. Joly, C. Kassiotis, D. Violeau, A. Leroy, F. Morel, B.D. Rogers, Unsteady open boundaries for sph using semi - analytical conditions and riemann solver in 2d, Comput. Phys. Commun. 210 (2017) 29 - 44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2016.09.009

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Federico, S

    I. Federico, S. Marrone, A. Colagrossi, F. Aristodemo, M. Antuono, Simulating 2d open - channel flows through an sph model, European Journal of Mechanics - B/Flu ids 34 (2012) 35 - 46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechflu.2012.02.002

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    Tafuni, J.M

    A. Tafuni, J.M. Domínguez, R. Vacondio, A.J.C. Crespo, A versatile algorithm for the treatment of open boundary conditions in smoothed particle hydrodynamics gpu m odels, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 342 (2018) 604 -

    2018

  37. [45]

    Zhang, W

    S. Zhang, W. Zhang, C. Zhang, X. Hu, A lagrangian free - stream boundary condition for weakly compressible smoothed particle hydrodynami cs, J. Comput. Phys. 490 (2023) 112303. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112303

    2023

  38. [46]

    Douillet - Grellier, F

    T. Douillet - Grellier, F. De Vuyst, H. Calandra, P. Ricoux, Simulations of intermittent two - phase flows in pipes using smoothed particle hydrodynamics, C omput. Fluids 177 (2018) 101 - 122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.10.004

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Rezavand, X

    M. Rezavand, X. Hu, Numerical simulation of two - phase slug flows in horizontal pipelines: a 3 - d smoothed particle hydrodynamics application, European Jo urnal of Mechanics - B/Fluids 104 (2024) 56 - 67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechflu.2023.11.005

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Morris, P.J

    J.P. Morris, P.J. Fox, Y. Zhu, Modeling low reynolds number incompressible flows using sph, J. Comput. Phys. 136 (1) (1997) 214 -

    1997

  41. [49]

    Randles, L.D

    P.W. Randles, L.D. Libersky, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: some recent improvements and applications, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 139 (1) (1996) 375 -

    1996

  42. [50]

    Adami, X.Y

    S. Adami, X.Y. Hu, N.A. Adams, A generalized wall boundary condition for smoothed particle hydrodynamics, J. Comput. Phys. 231 (21) (2012) 7057 - 7075

    2012

  43. [51]

    Adami, X.Y

    S. Adami, X.Y. Hu, N.A. Adams, A transport - velocity formulation for smo othed particle hydrodynamics, J. Comput. Phys. 241 (2013) 292 -

    2013

  44. [52]

    Meringolo, A

    D.D. Meringolo, A. Lauria, F. Aristodemo, P.F. Filianoti, Large eddy simulation within the smoothed particle hydrodynamics: applications to multiphase flow s, Phys. Fluids 35 (6) (2023) 63312. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0150347

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Bird, Transport phenomena, Appl

    R.B. Bird, Transport phenomena, Appl. Mech. Rev. 55 (1) (2002) R1 - R4. 42

    2002

  46. [54]

    Y. Wang, C. Shu, H.B. Huang, C.J. Teo, Multiphase lattice boltzmann flux solver for incompre ssible multiphase flows with large density ratio, J. Comput. Phys. 280 (2015) 404 - 423. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2014.09.035

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    Huang, X

    H. Huang, X. Lu, Relative permeabilities and coupling effects in steady - state gas - liquid flow in porous m edia: a lattice boltzmann study, Phys. Fluids 21 (9) (2009) 92104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3225144

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    M. Liu, C. Jiang, B.C. Khoo, H. Zhu, G. Gao, A cell - based smoothed finite element model for the analysis of turbulent flow using realizable k - ε model and mixed meshes, J. Comput. Phys. 501 (2024) 112783. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112783

    2024

  49. [57]

    Laufer, Investigation of turbulent flow in a two - dimensional channel, in, 1951

    J. Laufer, Investigation of turbulent flow in a two - dimensional channel, in, 1951

    1951

  50. [58]

    Launder, D.B

    B.E. Launder, D.B. Spalding, The numerical computation of turbulent flows, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 3 (2) (1974) 269 -

    1974

  51. [59]

    Pope, Turbulent flows, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    S.B. Pope, Turbulent flows, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    2000

  52. [67]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2019.08.002

    2019 doi

  53. [68]

    Zhang, X.Y

    C. Zhang, X.Y. Hu, N.A. Adams, A generalized transport - velocity formulation for smoothed particle hydrodynamics, J. Comput. P hys. 337 (2017) 216 - 232. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.02.016

    2017 doi

  54. [147]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2005.10.004

    2005 doi

  55. [188]

    1016/j.jcp.2014.11.037

    https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jcp.2014.11.037

    2014

  56. [201]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2019.01.012

    2019 doi

  57. [226]

    htt ps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1997.5776

    1997

  58. [273]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168 - 874X(96)00032 - 7

    doi

  59. [286]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141 - 1187(03)00002 - 6

    doi

  60. [289]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0045 - 7825(74)90029 - 2

    doi

  61. [307]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2013.01.043

    2013 doi

  62. [389]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0021 - 9991(83)90036 - 0

    doi

  63. [408]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.101 6/S0045 - 7825(96)01090 - 0

  64. [475]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021 - 9991(03)00324 - 3

    doi

  65. [624]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018.08.004

    2018 doi

  66. [861]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2005.09.001

    2005 doi

  67. [1024]

    82 (1977) 1013 - 1024

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.