English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

We compare the computational performance of two modeling approaches for theflow of dilute cavitation bubbles in a liquid. The first approach is adeterministic model, for which bubbles are represented in a Lagrangianframework as advected features, each sampled from a distribution of equilibriumbubble sizes. The dynamic coupling to the liquid phase is modeled through localvolume averaging. The second approach is stochastic; ensemble-phase averagingis used to derive mixture-averaged equations and field equations for theassociated bubble properties are evolved in an Eulerian reference frame. Forpolydisperse mixtures, the probability density function of the equilibriumbubble radii is discretized and bubble properties are solved for eachrepresentative bin. In both cases, the equations are closed by solvingRayleigh-Plesset-like equations for the bubble dynamics as forced by the localor mixture-averaged pressure, respectively. An acoustically excited dilutebubble screen is used as a case study for comparisons. We show that observablesof ensemble- and volume-averaged simulations match closely and that theirconvergence is first order under grid refinement. Guidelines are establishedfor phase-averaged simulations by comparing the computational costs of methods.The primary costs are shown to be associated with stochastic closure;polydisperse ensemble-averaging requires many samples of the underlying PDF andvolume-averaging requires repeated, randomized simulations to accuratelyrepresent a homogeneous bubble population. The relative sensitivities of thesecosts to spatial resolution and bubble void fraction are presented.

A quantitative comparison of phase-averaged models for bubbly, cavitating flows