Averaged models for compressible two-phase stratified flows on thin domains

AMU); Khaled Saleh (I2M; Nicolas Seguin (ANGUS); Pierrick Le Vourc'H (ANGUS)

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Averaged models for compressible two-phase stratified flows on thin domains

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 Vertical averaging of a thin two-layer Navier-Stokes system, with slip at the interface, produces closed two-velocity one-pressure two-phase flow models, with explicit error orders.

desk verdict A careful formal asymptotic derivation of two-velocity one-pressure models, worth sending to referees, but the theorems as stated need uniform-in-epsilon bounds that are never assumed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08542 v1 pith:Y6GJI4MG submitted 2025-06-10 math.AP

Nicolas Seguin (ANGUS) , Khaled Saleh (I2M , AMU) , Pierrick Le Vourc'H (ANGUS) This is my paper

classification math.AP MSC 76T1035Q3035C2076A20

keywords compressibletwo-phaseflowstratifiedthindomainasymptoticverticalaveragingNavier-Stokestwo-velocityone-pressuremodelNavierinterfaceconditionNavier-Stokes-Fourier

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 derives averaged equations for compressible two-phase stratified flows from a microscopic three-dimensional description, rather than postulating them from closure heuristics. It considers two immiscible compressible fluids stacked in a thin domain of thickness ratio $\varepsilon = D/L \ll 1$, each governed by Navier-Stokes equations. The essential choice is to allow tangential slip between the fluids through a Navier friction condition at the interface and to scale viscosity and friction coefficients as powers of $\varepsilon$. After vertical averaging, the paper obtains closed two-dimensional systems with two velocities and one pressure in the barotropic case, and two velocities, one pressure, and two temperatures in the full Navier-Stokes-Fourier case, with theorems stating the approximation errors. This matters because two-velocity models of this type were previously obtained by ad hoc interfacial closures, while here they emerge as an asymptotic limit of the three-dimensional equations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the vertical average over each phase layer: the arithmetic average (3.1) for densities and pressures, and the density-weighted average (3.2) for velocities and energies. Closure comes from three estimates: the rescaled vertical momentum equation makes the pressure nearly independent of the vertical coordinate, so interface pressures can be replaced by any convex combination $p_i$ of the averaged pressures; the rescaled Navier interface condition converts the vertical flux of horizontal momentum into the drag source term $\hat\kappa_i(\langle v_{1,h}\rangle-\langle v_{2,h}\rangle)$; and Taylor expansions show the horizontal velocity of each phase is nearly constant across its layer, so products of velocities close as products of their averages. The scaling conditions (3.3) are what decide which terms survive as $\varepsilon\to 0$; varying the interface friction exponent is what interpolates between the two-velocity and one-velocity averaged models.

What would settle it

Direct numerical simulation of the 3D two-phase Navier-Stokes system (2.4)-(2.13) with the scaling (3.3) and an initially flat interface should show the vertical averages satisfying (3.4)-(3.8) with residuals shrinking at the stated orders; if instead the residuals fail to vanish or the interface leaves the graph regime ($\alpha_1$ leaves $(0,1)$) while $\varepsilon$ is small, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the two-velocity, one-pressure system (1.1)-(1.4) is the leading-order vertical average of a thin two-layer compressible Navier-Stokes model, provided tangential slip is allowed at the interface and the coefficients are scaled as $\mu_k=\hat\mu_k\varepsilon^\tau$ with $0<\tau<2$, $\kappa_i=\hat\kappa_i\varepsilon$, and $\kappa_k=\hat\kappa_k\varepsilon^\xi$ with $\xi\ge 1$ (Theorem 3.2). Under these scalings, the averaged densities, horizontal velocities, and pressures satisfy (3.4)-(3.8) up to errors of order $\varepsilon^\tau+\varepsilon^{2-\tau}+(1-\delta_\xi)\varepsilon^{\xi-1}$, where $\delta_\xi$ is 1 when $\xi=1$ and 0 otherwise, and the equations of state and equality of pressures hold up to order $\varepsilon^\tau$. If the tangential interface condition is instead the no-slip Dirichlet condition, the two averaged velocities coincide up to order $\varepsilon^{2-\tau}$ and the one-velocity hyperbolic model of Theorem 3.13 is recovered. In the non-barotropic case, the same averaging applied to the Navier-Stokes-Fourier system, with thermal conductivities $\beta_k=\hat\beta_k\varepsilon^\gamma$ ($0\le\gamma<2$) and contact conductance $h_c/\varepsilon$, yields the closed two-velocity, one-pressure, two-temperature system (4.13)-(4.19) with the stated error orders (Theorem 4.1).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the two fluids remain perfectly stratified forever: the interface must stay a graph $z = D\alpha_1(t,x)$ with $0<\alpha_1<1$, and the microscopic model contains no gravity or surface tension that would enforce this; if shear makes the interface overturn, the vertical averaging and the whole asymptotic model break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The two-velocity, one-pressure model is not an ad hoc closure: it is the $\varepsilon\to 0$ limit of the 3D Navier-Stokes system with Navier interfacial slip and the scaling (3.3), with explicit error bounds.
Changing the scaling of the interface friction changes the target model: friction of order $\varepsilon$ gives two velocities, while slower-decaying friction (exponent $\zeta<1$) forces $\langle v_{1,h}\rangle=\langle v_{2,h}\rangle$ and recovers the one-velocity hyperbolic model of Theorem 3.13.
The interfacial drag and wall friction source terms in the averaged momentum equations come directly from the microscopic boundary conditions, so no separate phenomenological closure is needed for them.
In the Navier-Stokes-Fourier case the averaged model has two temperatures with a heat-exchange term $\hat h_c(\theta_1-\theta_2)$, and thermal conduction enters only when $\gamma=0$; otherwise heat diffusion is a higher-order effect.
Because the derivation is carried out in a multidimensional horizontal domain, it covers averaged models in two dimensions, a setting that the existing one-dimensional homogenization derivations do not reach.

Reading between the lines

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

If gravity and surface tension were added to the microscopic model, the persistent-stratification assumption could become a consequence of the dynamics rather than a standing ansatz; the averaging machinery would likely survive unchanged, but this extension is not in the paper.
The error orders mix the viscosity exponent $\tau$ with the friction exponents $\xi$ and $\gamma$, which suggests a numerical or experimental program that tunes these coefficients could identify which asymptotic regime real pipe flows occupy from measured slip lengths.
The same layer-by-layer averaging route could be applied to three or more stacked fluids or to stratified flows with phase change, since the interface conditions are local; those cases are natural but untested extensions.
Because the no-slip limit collapses the model to one velocity, the paper implies that the existence of a two-velocity regime is tied to measurable interfacial slip, so experiments or simulations that suppress slip should see the one-velocity model instead.

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

The genuinely new thing here is the use of Navier-type interfacial slip instead of velocity continuity. With the chosen scalings of viscosity, wall friction, and interfacial friction, vertical averaging closes at the level of a two-velocity, one-pressure system with explicit error orders and source terms. The 1980s averaging papers relied on heuristic interface closures, and the homogenization route produced one-velocity models, so this gives a real alternative route to the two-velocity equations used in engineering.

What the paper does well is the algebra. The averaged mass equations are exact, the momentum balance is tracked with Landau remainders, and the scalings in (3.3) are not guessed but derived from the requirement that the remainders vanish and the friction terms stay finite. The recovery of the one-velocity model as the interfacial friction limit is a nice check. The Navier-Stokes-Fourier extension follows the same pattern and gives a two-temperature averaged model, which is a useful addition.

The main soft spot is the one the stress-test note identifies. Theorem 3.2 assumes only that the microscopic system admits a strong solution for each epsilon, but the error estimates in Lemma 3.8 and elsewhere are controlled by sup norms of derivatives that could, in principle, grow like negative powers of epsilon. Without uniform-in-epsilon bounds, the claims of order epsilon^tau + epsilon^(2-tau) are not justified. This is a missing hypothesis rather than a demonstrated contradiction, but it is load-bearing: both Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 4.1 are formal as written. The same issue appears in Section 4, where the assumption on ∂_z ∇_h θ_k is an extra regularity hypothesis that also needs a uniform bound.

The stratification ansatz is real but explicit. The interface is assumed to stay a graph for all time, and the model has no gravity or surface tension to enforce that. The authors acknowledge this in Remark 2.1, so I read it as a stated limitation rather than a hidden flaw, though it does restrict the physical regime to flows that do not overturn.

Citations look appropriate, and the self-citations are background rather than load-bearing. The paper is coherent, honest, and useful for people working on two-phase averaged models or thin-film asymptotics. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it out and ask the authors either to impose uniform-in-epsilon bounds or to label the derivation formal throughout.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives two-dimensional averaged models for compressible two-phase stratified flows by performing a thin-domain asymptotic reduction of a three-dimensional two-layer Navier-Stokes system. The barotropic case yields the two-velocity, one-pressure system (3.4)-(3.8), claimed to hold up to explicit error orders under the scaling (3.3); the Navier-Stokes-Fourier case yields the two-velocity, one-pressure, two-temperature system (4.13)-(4.19) under the additional scaling (4.11) and structural assumption (4.12). The derivation proceeds by rescaling the microscopic equations, simplifying the vertical momentum equation and interface conditions, averaging in the vertical variable, and closing the resulting boundary terms through Landau-type estimates such as (3.16)-(3.17).

Significance. If the claims are taken as a formal asymptotic derivation, the paper gives a transparent route to two-velocity, one-pressure averaged models with explicit source terms, complementing earlier one-dimensional homogenization results that produce one-velocity models. The averaging is carried out in a multidimensional horizontal setting, the averaged mass equations are exact, and the error analysis is presented in enough detail to be checked. The main value is therefore in the derivation itself and in the explicit scaling conditions under which the interaction terms appear. The significance is conditional, however, because the theorem-level statements currently rely on unstated uniform-in-epsilon bounds on the microscopic solutions.

major comments (3)

[§3.2.2, Lemma 3.8 and Theorem 3.2] The error estimates (3.16)-(3.17) are Landau O-terms whose constants depend on sup norms of time and space derivatives of the velocity and pressure, such as ∂_t v, ∇v, ∇²v and ∇p. The theorem only assumes that a strong solution exists for each epsilon and imposes no uniform-in-epsilon bound on these norms. Since the solution itself depends on epsilon through the rescaled coefficients, these norms can in principle grow like epsilon^{-N}, in which case the claimed errors ε^τ + ε^{2-τ} and ε^τ do not follow. The same gap affects the energy estimates in Section 4. This is repairable by adding explicit hypotheses such as uniform-in-epsilon bounds on the relevant solution norms, but without such hypotheses Theorems 3.2 and 4.1 are not justified as stated.
[§4.3.1, eq. (4.12) and Lemma 4.6] The estimate ∂_z ∇_h θ_k = O(ε²/β) in assumption (4.12) is not derived from the energy equation; it is an additional structural condition on the microscopic solution, and it is load-bearing for the energy closure. Lemma 4.6 and the displayed error order ε^{2-γ} in (4.15) collapse without it. The paper should either prove (4.12) from the equation and uniform bounds, or state explicitly in Theorem 4.1 that the result is conditional on this solution-dependent assumption. As written, the distinction between assumptions on the constant coefficients in (3.3) and (4.11) and this assumption on the solution itself is not made prominent enough.
[§2.1, eq. (2.2) and Remark 2.1] The graph parametrization of the interface, α₁(t,x) ∈ (0,1), is assumed for all times, and every vertical integration in Theorems 3.2 and 4.1 depends on it. The microscopic model contains no gravity or surface tension, so the equations provide no mechanism preventing shear instabilities, overturning, or interface folding. If the interface ceases to be a graph, the averaging procedure and the resulting asymptotic model break down. The authors acknowledge this in Remark 2.1, but the final theorems should list this condition as an explicit hypothesis, and the abstract or introduction should describe the result as conditional on persistence of stratification.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and running title] The running title on page 1 reads 'A VERAGED MODELS ...', and the abstract contains the typo 'two-ph ase'; both should be corrected.
[§4.2, Theorem 4.1] The averaged energy equation uses ⟨E_{k,h}⟩, but E_{k,h} is only defined later in §4.3.1; the definition should be moved before the theorem statement.
[Remark 3.5] The remark says the asymptotic limit corresponds to 'moderate Mach numbers and high Reynolds numbers', but no Mach number appears in the dimensionless equations; this statement should be made precise or removed.
[§3.2.3] The constraints on τ, ξ, ζ obtained from the remainder R are listed in prose; displaying them as a set of inequalities before the final scaling (3.3) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the averaged models are obtained by direct asymptotic integration of the microscopic Navier-Stokes system; the only self-citations are background and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The paper starts from the compressible Navier-Stokes system (2.4)-(2.13) in the barotropic case and (4.1)-(4.10) in the Navier-Stokes-Fourier case, rescales the equations (Lemma 2.6, Section 4.3.1), simplifies the vertical momentum equation and interface conditions by dropping asymptotically small terms, integrates the mass and horizontal momentum equations vertically, and then identifies the closed averaged system (3.4)-(3.8) and (4.13)-(4.19). The target model is not assumed as an ansatz: the averaged momentum equation (3.5) is obtained in Proposition 3.7 from the rescaled horizontal momentum equation, with pointwise boundary values replaced through Lemma 3.8 and the friction scalings (3.3) chosen afterward so that the remainder R tends to zero. The scalings are stated hypotheses, not outputs of the derivation. The persistent-stratification graph hypothesis (2.2) is an explicit structural assumption, and the additional regularity assumption (4.12) is stated as a hypothesis in Theorem 4.1; neither is disguised as a derived conclusion. The only self-citations, [8] and [13], appear in the introduction as background on well-posedness of two-velocity two-pressure models and prior homogenization derivations; they are not used to justify the closure of the averaged equations or the error estimates. A genuine rigor gap is that Theorems 3.2 and 4.1 assert Landau error orders controlled by solution norms without explicitly assuming those norms are bounded uniformly in epsilon; this affects the rigor of the estimates but is a missing hypothesis, not a constructional identity between input and output. Accordingly, no 'prediction' reduces to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain, and the circularity score is minimal.

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

The central derivation introduces hand-chosen scaling exponents (tau, xi, gamma) and an undetermined interfacial pressure p_i, and relies on three unproven analytical assumptions: strong solutions, uniform epsilon-bounds, and persistent stratification. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)

tau = 0 < tau < 2
Scaling exponent for viscosity and bulk viscosity: mu_k = mu_hat_k epsilon^tau, lambda_k = lambda_hat_k epsilon^tau. Chosen by hand (Sec. 3.2.3) to make error terms vanish and the model compressible and inviscid in the limit; the derived model only holds in this regime.
xi = xi >= 1
Scaling exponent for wall friction: kappa_k = kappa_hat_k epsilon^xi. Chosen so wall friction term survives (delta_xi) or vanishes (xi > 1) in the limit; condition xi >= 1 required for finite friction terms.
gamma = 0 <= gamma < 2
Scaling exponent for thermal conductivity in the Navier-Stokes-Fourier case: beta_k = beta_hat_k epsilon^gamma. Chosen to balance heat diffusion versus convection in the averaged energy equation.
interfacial pressure p_i = any convex combination of averaged pressures p_1, p_2
The derivation only yields p1(alpha) = p_i + O(mu) where p_i is any convex combination of averaged pressures (Theorem 3.2, Remark 3.9). This is an undetermined closure in the derived model, not fixed by the asymptotics.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The microscopic Navier-Stokes systems (2.4)-(2.13) admit strong solutions on the time interval considered, with enough regularity for the derivatives appearing in the error estimates.
Assumed in Remark 2.1 ('we assume in all this work that the systems we study admit strong solutions'). Existence and regularity are not proven, and the regularity needed for the Landau remainder terms is not specified.
domain assumption The flow remains stratified: the interface is a graph z = D alpha_1(t,x) for all times, with alpha_1 in (0,1).
Introduced in Section 2.1 (eq. 2.2). The paper assumes an initial and persistent stratified configuration but includes no gravity or surface tension (Remark 2.1), so there is no mechanism in the model preventing overturning or interface folding that would make the graph ansatz break down.
domain assumption All dimensionless solution derivatives appearing in the O(.) remainders are uniformly bounded with respect to epsilon.
Not stated explicitly. The Landau estimates (e.g., Proposition 3.7, Lemma 3.8) require quantities like partial_t v, partial_x v, partial_zz v to be O(1) independent of epsilon. Without such uniform bounds the error orders are formal.
ad hoc to paper In the Navier-Stokes-Fourier case, partial_z grad_h theta_k = O(epsilon^2 / beta_k) in Omega_k (assumption (4.12)).
Explicitly assumed in Theorem 4.1, eq. (4.12), to close the averaged heat flux term via Lemma 4.6. It is a technical regularity assumption on the temperature profile.
standard math The equations of state are regular and increasing (barotropic) or complete with the entropy relation (4.6).
Sections 2.2 and 4.1; standard thermodynamic modeling assumptions, not proven but standard in the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Averaged models for compressible two-phase stratified flows on thin domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y6GJI4MG

@misc{pith2026250608542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Averaged models for compressible two-phase stratified flows on thin domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y6GJI4MG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08542}
}

read the original abstract

This paper deals with the derivation of compressible two-phase flow models. We use a thin domain approximation of a two-layer configuration governed by the Navier-Stokes equations, following the works [H. B. Stewart and B. Wendroff, J. Comp. Phys., 56 (1984)] and [V. H. Ransom and D. L. Hicks, J. Comput. Phys., 75 (1988)]. In order to recover source terms and two-velocity models directly from this asymptotic analysis, we remove the continuity of the tangential component of the velocity at the interface, and properly scale friction and viscosity coefficients. We are then able to derive two-velocity one-pressure models, first in the barotropic case and then in the full Navier-Stokes-Fourier case.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

M. R. Baer and J. W. Nunziato , A Two-Phase Mixture Theory for the Deﬂagration-to- Detonation Transition (DDT) in Reactive Granular Materials , International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 12 (1986), pp. 861–889, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0301-9322(86)90033-9

doi:10.1016/0301-9322(86)90033-9 1986
[2]

Bestion , The physical closure laws in the CATHARE code , Nuclear Engineering and De- sign, 124 (1990), pp

D. Bestion , The physical closure laws in the CATHARE code , Nuclear Engineering and De- sign, 124 (1990), pp. 229–245, https://doi.org/10.1016/0 029-5493(90)90294-8

doi:10.1016/0 1990
[3]

Bresch, C

D. Bresch, C. Burtea, and F. Lagoutière , Mathematical justiﬁcation of a compressible biﬂuid system with diﬀerent pressure laws: a continuous app roach, Applicable Analysis, 101 (2022), pp. 4235–4266, https://doi.org/10.1080/0003 6811.2022.2103679

work page arXiv 2022
[4]

Bresch, B

D. Bresch, B. Desjardins, J.-M. Ghidaglia, and E. Grenier , Global Weak Solutions to a Generic Two-Fluid Model , Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 196 (2010), pp. 599–629, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-009-0261- 6

work page doi:10.1007/s00205-009-0261- 2010
[5]

Bresch and M

D. Bresch and M. Hillairet , Note on the Derivation of Multi-Component Flow Systems , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 143 (201 5), pp. 3429–3443, https:// doi.org/10.1090/proc/12614

work page doi:10.1090/proc/12614
[6]

Bresch and M

D. Bresch and M. Hillairet , A compressible multiﬂuid system with new physical relaxati on terms, Annales scientiﬁques de l’École normale supérieure, 52 (2 019), pp. 255–295, https:// doi.org/10.24033/asens.2387

work page doi:10.24033/asens.2387
[7]

Bresch and X.-D

D. Bresch and X.-D. Huang , A Multi-Fluid Compressible System as the Limit of Weak So- lutions of the Isentropic Compressible Navier–Stokes Equat ions, Archive for Rational Me- chanics and Analysis, 201 (2011), pp. 647–680, https://doi .org/10.1007/s00205-011-0400-8

work page doi:10.1007/s00205-011-0400-8 2011
[8]

Coquel, J.-M

F. Coquel, J.-M. Hérard, K. Saleh, and N. Seguin , Two properties of two-velocity two- pressure models for two-phase ﬂows , Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 12 (2014), https://hal.science/hal-00788902/ﬁle/CHSS-1.pdf (acc essed 2025-05-27)

work page 2014

Show all 20 references

[9]

Demay and J.-M

C. Demay and J.-M. Hérard , A compressible two-layer model for transient gas–liquid ﬂo ws in pipes , Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 29 (2017), pp. 38 5–410, https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00161-016-0531-0

2017 doi
[10]

D. A. Drew and S. L. Passman , Theory of Multicomponent Fluids , vol. 135 of Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer New York, New York, NY, 199 9, https://doi.org/10.1007/ b97678
[11]

D. W. Hahn and M. N. Ozisik , Heat Conduction , Wiley, Hoboken, N.J, 3rd ed ed., 2012, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411285. 24 P. LE VOURC’H, K. SALEH, AND N. SEGUIN

2012 doi
[12]

Hillairet , On Baer-Nunziato Multiphase Flow Models , ESAIM: Proceedings and Surveys, 66 (2019), pp

M. Hillairet , On Baer-Nunziato Multiphase Flow Models , ESAIM: Proceedings and Surveys, 66 (2019), pp. 61–83, https://doi.org/10.1051/proc/2019 66004

2019 doi
[13]

Hillairet, H

M. Hillairet, H. Mathis, and N. Seguin , Analysis of compressible bubbly ﬂows. Part II: Derivation of a macroscopic model , ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 57 (2023), pp. 2865–2906, https://doi.org/10.1 051/m2an/2023046

2023
[14]

Ishii and T

M. Ishii and T. Hibiki , Thermo-Fluid Dynamics of Two-Phase Flow , Springer, New York, 2nd ed ed., 2011

2011
[15]

Ndjinga , Inﬂuence of interfacial pressure on the hyperbolicity of th e two-ﬂuid model , Comptes Rendus

M. Ndjinga , Inﬂuence of interfacial pressure on the hyperbolicity of th e two-ﬂuid model , Comptes Rendus. Mathématique, 344 (2007), pp. 407–412, htt ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.crma. 2007.02.006

2007 doi
[16]

J. D. Ramsha w and J. A. Trapp , Characteristics, stability, and short-wavelength phenome na in two-phase ﬂow equation systems , Nuclear Science and Engineering, 66 (1978), pp. 93– 102, https://doi.org/10.13182/NSE78-A15191

1978 doi
[17]

V. H. Ransom and D. L. Hicks , Hyperbolic two-pressure models for two-phase ﬂow , Journal of Computational Physics, 53 (1984), pp. 124–151, h ttps://doi.org/10.1016/ 0021-9991(84)90056-1

1984
[18]

V. H. Ransom and D. L. Hicks , Hyperbolic two-pressure models for two-phase ﬂow revis- ited, Journal of Computational Physics, 75 (1988), pp. 498–504, https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0021-9991(88)90125-8

1988
[19]

H. B. Stew art , Stability of two-phase ﬂow calculation using two-ﬂuid mode ls, Jour- nal of Computational Physics, 33 (1979), pp. 259–270, https ://doi.org/10.1016/ 0021-9991(79)90020-2

1979
[20]

H. B. Stew art and B. Wendroff , Two-phase ﬂow: Models and methods , Journal of Compu- tational Physics, 56 (1984), pp. 363–409, https://doi.org /10.1016/0021-9991(84)90103-7

1984 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

M. R. Baer and J. W. Nunziato , A Two-Phase Mixture Theory for the Deﬂagration-to- Detonation Transition (DDT) in Reactive Granular Materials , International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 12 (1986), pp. 861–889, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0301-9322(86)90033-9

doi:10.1016/0301-9322(86)90033-9 1986

[2] [2]

Bestion , The physical closure laws in the CATHARE code , Nuclear Engineering and De- sign, 124 (1990), pp

D. Bestion , The physical closure laws in the CATHARE code , Nuclear Engineering and De- sign, 124 (1990), pp. 229–245, https://doi.org/10.1016/0 029-5493(90)90294-8

doi:10.1016/0 1990

[3] [3]

Bresch, C

D. Bresch, C. Burtea, and F. Lagoutière , Mathematical justiﬁcation of a compressible biﬂuid system with diﬀerent pressure laws: a continuous app roach, Applicable Analysis, 101 (2022), pp. 4235–4266, https://doi.org/10.1080/0003 6811.2022.2103679

work page arXiv 2022

[4] [4]

Bresch, B

D. Bresch, B. Desjardins, J.-M. Ghidaglia, and E. Grenier , Global Weak Solutions to a Generic Two-Fluid Model , Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 196 (2010), pp. 599–629, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-009-0261- 6

work page doi:10.1007/s00205-009-0261- 2010

[5] [5]

Bresch and M

D. Bresch and M. Hillairet , Note on the Derivation of Multi-Component Flow Systems , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 143 (201 5), pp. 3429–3443, https:// doi.org/10.1090/proc/12614

work page doi:10.1090/proc/12614

[6] [6]

Bresch and M

D. Bresch and M. Hillairet , A compressible multiﬂuid system with new physical relaxati on terms, Annales scientiﬁques de l’École normale supérieure, 52 (2 019), pp. 255–295, https:// doi.org/10.24033/asens.2387

work page doi:10.24033/asens.2387

[7] [7]

Bresch and X.-D

D. Bresch and X.-D. Huang , A Multi-Fluid Compressible System as the Limit of Weak So- lutions of the Isentropic Compressible Navier–Stokes Equat ions, Archive for Rational Me- chanics and Analysis, 201 (2011), pp. 647–680, https://doi .org/10.1007/s00205-011-0400-8

work page doi:10.1007/s00205-011-0400-8 2011

[8] [8]

Coquel, J.-M

F. Coquel, J.-M. Hérard, K. Saleh, and N. Seguin , Two properties of two-velocity two- pressure models for two-phase ﬂows , Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 12 (2014), https://hal.science/hal-00788902/ﬁle/CHSS-1.pdf (acc essed 2025-05-27)

work page 2014