Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593

www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x(Print)/1976-3824(Online)
DOI 10.1007/s12206-016-0313-4

A ghost fluid method for sharp interface simulations of

compressible multiphase flows†
Sahand Majidi and Asghar Afshari*
School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

(Manuscript Received April 29, 2015; Revised October 12, 2015; Accepted November 26, 2015)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract

A ghost fluid based computational tool is developed to study a wide range of compressible multiphase flows involving strong shocks
and contact discontinuities while accounting for surface tension, viscous stresses and gravitational forces. The solver utilizes constrained
reinitialization method to predict the interface configuration at each time step. Surface tension effect is handled via an exact interface
Riemann problem solver. Interfacial viscous stresses are approximated by considering continuous velocity and viscous stress across the
interface. To assess the performance of the solver several benchmark problems are considered: One-dimensional gas-water shock tube
problem, shock-bubble interaction, air cavity collapse in water, underwater explosion, Rayleigh-Taylor Instability, and ellipsoidal drop
oscillations. Results obtained from the numerical simulations indicate that the numerical methodology performs reasonably well in pre-
dicting flow features and exhibit a very good agreement with prior experimental and numerical observations. To further examine the
accuracy of the developed ghost fluid solver, the obtained results are compared to those by a conventional diffuse interface solver. The
comparison shows the capability of our ghost fluid method in reproducing the experimentally observed flow characteristics while reveal-
ing more details regarding topological changes of the interface.
Keywords: Compressible multiphase flow; Ghost fluid method; Level-set; Surface tension; Viscous flows
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

proach, interface is not precisely captured.

1. Introduction
Sharp interface methods, on the other hand, treat the inter-
Compressible multiphase flows have been of interest in face as a distinct moving boundary separating two immiscible
many research areas ranging from astrophysical and geo- fluids [6]. Therefore, the interface thickness is attempted to be
physical studies to applied engineering and biological fields maintained at minimum in order to resolve interfacial evolu-
such as supersonic combustion engines [1], detonation of tions precisely. The main challenge in using this approach is
highly explosive materials [2] and shockwave lithotripsy [3]. the determination of the exact location and orientation of the
Therefore, several numerical methods have been developed interface [7]. Additionally, in compressible context, awareness
for numerical study of the most difficult problems of com- of the flow state in the near interface computational cells has
pressible multiphase flow including strong shock-waves and been a crucial issue since the early stages of the development
interfaces with high impedance mismatch. of sharp interface methods [8].
Various modelling approaches of fluid flows with material A widely applicable methodology in sharp interface resolu-
interfaces can broadly be classified as Diffuse interface tion of compressible multiphase flows, is the famous front
method (DIM) and Sharp interface method (SIM). In diffuse tracking method [9, 10]. In this algorithm, the interface is rep-
interface approach, the interface is considered as a diffused resented by connecting a set of marker particles moving with
zone across which thermodynamic properties transition from the interface velocity and serves as a boundary for the subdo-
those belonging to one pure phase to the other [4]. Using this mains occupied by each pure phase. This method, is fairly
approach, fluid flow in the entire domain is described by a expensive due to its constant need for regular marker particle
unique formulation of governing equations, resulting into a redistribution and regridding [11, 12]. A simpler alternative to
significant simplification in the implementation of the algo- explicit front tracking method, is front capturing methodology,
rithm [5]. However, due to the inherent diffusivity of this ap- in which interface is tracked implicitly as an isosurface of an
indicator variable. This approach, in turn, is dividable to two
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 2182094025, Fax.: +98 2188013029
main subdivisions: Volume of fluid (VOF) methods [13] and
E-mail address: afsharia@ut.ac.ir
†
Recommended by Associate Editor Shin Hyung Lee Levelset (LS) methods [14].
© KSME & Springer 2016
1582 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593

In Volume of fluid approach the indicator variable is con-
sidered to be zero for one phase and one for the other. In VOF
algorithm, phase variable is first updated at each time step by
solving a volume fraction advection equation. Then, the inter-
face is reconstructed based on the new distribution of the indi-
cator variable [15-19]. Despite its inherent mass preservation,
easy extension to multidimensional problems, and automatic
handling of topology change [20, 21], VOF method requires
specific treatments in interface reconstruction [22, 23] and
curvature estimation [24, 25] due to its sharp distribution over
the interface.
Level set method is another major category in interface cap-
turing approach which defines the phase indicator variable as
a distance function from the interface [26]. Consequently, in
this method, the interface is represented by the zero value
isosurface of the level set variable which has a continuous
distribution over the interface [27]. Therefore, interface curva-
ture and normal vectors are calculated more accurately com-
pared to VOF. Here, interface orientation at each time step is
determined directly from levelset variable distribution without
requiring reconstruction. However, the distance function char-
acteristic of the level set variable is not maintained during
advection of the level set variable, necessitating regular reini-
tialization of the level set variable [28]. Mass loss is deemed
to be a major disadvantage of the levelset algorithm causing
the appearance of hybrid levelset algorithms such as combined
levelset-VOF [14], particle levelset [29], refined levelset grid
method [30], coupled levelset-VOF [31], and Level contour
reconstruction method (LCRM) [32]. Moreover, several reini-
tializaition methods have been introduced to maintain the
constancy of the interface location in reinitialization process
and therefore minimize the mass loss [33-35].
Generally, interface capturing methods do not give any in-
formation on the flow status of each phase adjacent to the
interface. Hence, in sharp interface framework context, trans-
interface communication and data transfer are usually estab-
lished through other algorithms called Ghost fluid methods
(GFM) which are coupled to the main interface capturing
scheme. Fedkiw et al. [36] proposed a GFM, where ghost
values are replaced by corresponding values of the opposite
phase in that interfacial cell. This method, although simple
The main objective of the present study is to develop a
ghost fluid solver applicable to simulate compressible multi-
phase flows possessing a diverse range of physical characteris-
tics. These compressible multiphase flows include highly con-
vective flows with strong shocks and interfaces with high-
acoustic impedance mismatch, gravity-driven flows, and sur-
face tension and viscosity dominated flows. The GFM pre-
sented in this study is a generalization of the algorithm intro-
duced earlier to simulate convection dominated multiphase
flows especially supersonic liquid jets [45]. In the present
paper, our ghost fluid method is extended to include numerical
schemes accounting for surface tension, viscosity, and gravity.
A comprehensive assessment of the method is conducted
through several test problems in one and two dimensions. To
the extent of our knowledge, no other ghost fluid algorithm
has been tested against a set of benchmark problems, as di-
verse and extensive as those utilized in the present study. The
predictions of the flow features and interface motion are in
good agreement with the results reported in the literature.
Therefore, the computational methodology appears to be a
promising approach for numerical investigation of multiphase
compressible flow simulations. Also, to evaluate the accuracy
of the presented GFM solver, our ghost fluid results are com-
pared to those obtained using a diffuse interface solver. The
comparison indicates that our ghost fluid approach does a
wonderful job in maintaining the interface capturing quality
and retrieving the details of interfacial evolutions.
2. Governing equations and numerical scheme
The governing equations for non-reacting compressible two
phase flow without phase change are
¶U ¶ ( F - Fv ) ¶ (G - Gv )
+ + =S (1)
¶t ¶x ¶y
where
é r ù é ru ù é ru ù
ê ú ê 2 ú ê ú
r u r u + P r uv
U = ê ú ,F = ê ú ,G = ê ú
ê rv ú ê r uv ú ê ru + P ú
2

ê ú ê ú ê ú
and easy to code, is not robust in simulating flows with large ëê r E ûú êëu ( r E + P ) úû êëv ( r E + P ) úû
density ratios, and phases with different equations of state. é 0 ù é 0 ù
Approximate Riemann solvers were applied at the interface to ê
t ú ê
t ú
Fv = ê ú ,G = ê ú
xx xy
construct the ghost values in order to prevent the defects of the
ê t xy ú v ê t yy ú
original GFM [37-39]. Sambasivan and Udaykumar [40] de- ê ú ê ú
veloped a GFM suitable for numerical simulation compressi- êëut xx + vt xy úû êëut xy + vt yy úû
ble multiphase flows as well as fluid-solid interaction [41]. é 0 ù
Later, they applied Local mesh refinement (LMR) [42] in their ê ú
ê ¶f ú
GFM to improve the quality of interface capturing and mass r g x - sk
ê ¶x ú
conservation of the scheme. Houim and Kuo [43] introduced a S = êê ¶f ú
ú (2)
ghost fluid algorithm capable of simulating reacting flows r g y - sk
ê ¶y ú
with phase change. Recently, Bo and Grove [44] have intro- ê ú
ê -usk ¶f ¶ f
duced a new VOF based GFM implemented in a sophisticated - vsk + r ug x + r vg y ú
êë ¶x ¶y úû
simulation code xRage.
 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593 1583

with E = e+0.5(u2+v2) and e as specific internal energy. where K = L, R and U*K is the intermediate state of the con-
Stiffened gas equation of state describes pressure as a func- servative variables and is calculated as
tion of internal energy and density
é1 ù
P = r e ( g -1) - g P¥ (3) ê ú
æ S - u K ö ê S*,K ú
U *,K = r K ç K ÷ê ú
è S K - S* ø êvK ú (9)
where γ is the specific heat ratio and P∞ is a constant which êë EK + ( S* - u K ) M úû
accounts for the material stiffness. The deviatoric and normal
PK
components of viscous stress tensor are given as: M = S* + .
r K ( S K - uK )
æ ¶v ¶u ö 2 æ ¶u ¶v ö
t xy = m ç + ÷- mç + ÷ With the intermediate fluxes (Eq. (8)) at hand, the numeri-
è ¶x ¶y ø 3 è ¶x ¶y ø
cal fluxes used in Eq. (5) are defined as
¶v 2 æ ¶u ¶v ö
t yy = 2m - mç + ÷ (4)
¶y 3 è ¶x ¶y ø
ì F (U L ) 0 £ S L
¶u 2 æ ¶u ¶v ö ï
t xx = 2m - mç + ÷. ï F*,L S L £ 0 £ S*
¶x 3 è ¶x ¶y ø F hllc =í (10)
ï F*,R S* £ 0 £ S R
ï F (U ) 0 ³ S
Also, vector S in Eq. (2) includes gravitational and surface î R R

tension source terms where σ is the surface tension coefficient

and κ represents interface curvature.
Temporal integration is performed using explicit third-order
TVD Runge-Kutta scheme [46]. Convective terms are descri-
tized by Hyperbolic finite volume method wherein local Rie-
mann Problems are formed and solved by the use of approxi-
mate Riemann solvers. As presented by Toro [47], in each
stage of the Runge-Kutta integration scheme, the convective
part of the governing equations is updated by the following
formula
Dt æ ö ity of the interface. In order to mitigate the errors introduced
U inew = U i - ç Fi+ 1 - Fi- 1 ÷
Dx è 2 2 ø
where F is the numerical flux and is approximated by HLLC
Riemann solver. If the fastest left and right running signal
speeds are defined as
S R = max(u L + cL , u R + cR ),
S L = min(u L - cL , u R - cR )
where c represents the speed of sound and indices L and R
indicate the left and right directions, then the wave speed in
the star region of the Riemann solver is calculated as
g ( P + P¥ )
c= . (7)
r
where F(UR) and F(UL) are the analytical convective fluxes
defined in Eq. (2).
In order to capture interface deformations, a level set meth-
od is employed. The level set equation is given by
¶f
+ u.Ñf = 0. (11)
¶t
The level set function f should be a good approximation
to a signed distance function over a narrow band in the vicin-
(5)
by a numerical discretization of Eq. (11) the level set function
should be reinitialized frequently [26]. However, conventional
reinitialization techniques often result in interface location
displacement during the reinitialization procedure. Therefore,
a constrained reinitialization approach [34] is utilized where
forcing terms are added to the reinitialization equation to
minimize the shift in the location of the interface.
(6) After level-set variable and interface configuration are up-
dated in each stage of the Runge-Kutta method, flow variables
of each phase in the vicinity of the interface need to be deter-
mined. Each computational cell is identified to be occupied by
one of the phases based on the sign of the level-set variable at
the cell center. Then, a search algorithm is employed to iden-
tify the cells located in the ghost cell layer of each phase, as-
suming that phases are immiscible. If n(i,j) is defined to be the
set of cells located within the p-node radius of the cell (i,j)

Now, the fluxes corresponding to intermediate region of the

Riemann problem are defined as
{ 2 2
n ( i, j ) = ( l , m ) | l - i + m - j £ p 2 } (12)

F*,K = FK + S K (U K - U *,K ) (8) then, tagging variable of the cell (i,j) is defined as below.
1584 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593

R ( PIm ; u L , PL , r L , u R , PR , r R ) =
(15)
GL ( PIm ; PL , r L ) + GR ( PIm ; PR , r R ) + u R - u L = 0.

Function GK(PIm;PK,ρK) is obtained from Rankine-Hugoniot

conditions for shocks and rarefaction waves in the side k of
the interface. For shock waves, we have

æ aK ö
GK ( PIm ; PK , r K ) = ç ÷ ( PI - PK ) (16)
(a) Configuration of the interface ç PK + bK ÷
è ø

where

2
aK = ,
(g K + 1) r K
g K -1
bK = PK , (17)
gK +1
PK = PK + P¥ ,K
(b) Ghost cell layer for (c) Ghost cell for the liquid phase
the gas phase
and the respective relation for expansion waves is defined as
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of ghost cell layer encompassing the
interface. In images (b) and (c) the yellow cells represent the interfacial g K -1
cells and the green cells depict the ghost cell layer of each phase. Blue æ ö
m
æ 2cK ö ç æ PI ö 2g K ÷.
and Red cells show the interior cells for liquid and gas phase, respec- GK ( PI ; PK , r K ) = ç ÷ ç çç ÷÷ - 1 ÷ (18)
tively. g
è K - 1 P
øç è K ø ÷
è ø

ì0 if fi , j ´ fnb > 0 In the above equation, cK is the sound speed on the side k of
ï the interface.
ï1 if fi , j ´ fnb < 0
c ( i, j ) = í (13) It is possible that convergence is not achieved within a pre-
ï2 if fi , j ´ fn ( i , j ) < 0
determined number of iterations in Newton’s root finding
ï3 else .
î algorithm [49]. In this case, the numerical algorithm switches
to an approximate interface Riemann solver to recalculate the
In the above equation, nb represents indices of a neighbor- state vectors of the physical variables at cell edges intersecting
ing cell to the cell with indices (i,j). It is worth mentioning that the interface [45]. In the approximate procedure, the interme-
if c(i,j) = 0, then the cell (i,j) is an interior cell of phase A. The diate state of variables is given as below
value one of c(i,j) indicates that cell (i,j) is an interfacial cell
but still belonging to the phase A. When c(i,j) is set equal to PI = PK + r K ( S K - u K )( S* - u K ) ,
two, the cell (i,j) is located in the ghost cell layer of phase A. æ S K - uK ö
Value three for c(i,j) indicates that the cell belongs to the r I ,K = r K ç ÷, (19)
phase B and is located out of the p node thick ghost cell layer. è S K - S* ø
Fig. 1 shows distribution of the tagging variable for each u I = S* ,
phase in a computational zone including the phase interface.
After generation of the ghost cell layer, interface Riemann where index I indicates the intermediate state of the variables
problems are solved between every couple of adjacent interfa- and K = L,R. Also we have
cial cells. To this end, the exact Riemann solver presented by
Rallu [48] is used, in which interfacial pressure is obtained by S R = max(u R + cR , u% + %c),
the Newton’s iterative root finding process. (20)
S = min(u - c , u% - %c).
L L L

R ( PIm ; u L , PL , r L , u R , PR , r R ) The tilde symbol indicates Roe averaged quantities of ve-

PIm+1 = PIm - (14)
R¢( PIm ; u L , PL , r L , u R , PR , r R ) locity and sound speed which are calculated as below.

r L uL + r R uR
where PI is pressure at the interface and function R is defined u% = h ( u ) = , (21)
as rL + rR
 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593 1585

%c 2 = h ( Y ) + h ( G ) éêh æ P ö + L ùú .
ç ÷
êë è r ø úû

In the above equation, quantities Λ, Ψ and Γ are defined as

below

2
0.25
1 æ ( u - u L )( r L r R ) ö
L= ç R ÷ '
2ç rL + rR ÷
è ø
(a) Gaseous phase (b) Liquid phase
¶P
Y= ' (22) Fig. 2. Direction of multidimensional extrapolation for gas and liquid
¶r e
phase.
1 ¶P
G= .
r ¶e r neighboring the interface

Now that the solutions of the interfacial Riemann problems ¶y

+ H (y ) n.Ñy = 0 (27)
are at hand, ghost values of each interfacial ghost cell are ¶t
computed as below
where Ψ represents the primary variable extended across the
NR
* interface, τ is the pseudo-time, and H(Ψ) is the Heaviside
åU g n.ncellface
Ug = i =1
(23) function.
NR
The procedure outlined so far, does not consider effects of
å n.n cellface
i =1 viscous stresses on the interface. Based on the method intro-
duced by Houim and Kuo [43], velocity components of each
where Ug* represents the number of cell edges coincident with phase near the free surface for every cell boundary in the vi-
the interface (it is possible that an interfacial cell is bordered cinity of the interface are obtained by imposing normal and
by the interface in more than one edge), and represents the tangential velocity continuity and normal and tangential vis-
solution of each interface Riemann problem, ncell face is the cous stress continuity across the interface.
normal vector to the cell edge, and n is the normal vector to
the interface. t nn ,g = t nn ,l
Surface tension effect is accounted for in the present ghost t nt ,g = t nt ,l
fluid method as the pressure difference across the interface (28)
un ,g = un ,l
induced by the presence of surface tension. This pressure dis-
continuity is inserted as a jump condition in the solution pro- ut ,g = ut ,l
cedure of the interface Riemann solver.
where normal and tangential components of stress tensor and
Pliquid - Pgas = sk . (24) velocity vector at the interface are defined as

t nn = t xx nx 2 + t yy n y 2 + 2t xy nx n y
In the above equation, κ is the interface curvature defined as
t nt = ( nx 2 - n y 2 )t xy + (t xx - t yy ) nx n y
(29)
k = Ñ.n (25) un = unx + vn y
ut = vnx - un y .
and n is computed as

Ñf Stress components in the above equation are defined in Eq.

n=- . (26)
Ñf
Once primary variables of the interfacial cells are corrected,
a multidimensional extrapolation algorithm is utilized to popu-
late the ghost fluid cells of each phase along a direction nor-
mal to the interface as shown in Fig. 2.
In the algorithm described above, the multidimensional ex-
trapolation PDE given below is solved iteratively to obtain a
steady state solution for a 5-point layer of computational cells
(4). Substituting Eqs. (4) and (29) into Eq. (28) and discretiz-
ing the resulting equation, we have a set of four algebraic
equations to determine four unknown interfacial variables ug,
ul, vl and vg. The computed interfacial velocity components for
gas and liquid phase are then used to calculate viscous stress
components at cell edges adjacent to the interface. Surface
tension effects are also included in the interface Riemann
problem and induce a pressure difference across the interface
proportional to the interface curvature.
1586 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593

3. Results Table 1. Error norms obtained using sequentially refined uniform grids.

In order to assess the capabilities of our developed ghost Grid number Grid spacing L1 error norm
fluid method, several compressible multiphase problems are 128 0.078125 5597.986768
considered. Convection dominated shock-interface interaction 256 0.0390625 2786.203767
problems include one-dimensional tin-air shock tube, conver- 512 0.01953125 1394.123768
gent shock-bubble interaction, air bubble collapse in water,
1024 0.009765625 697.5438371
and under-water explosion. The performance of our numerical
algorithm in predicting viscous and surface tension effects is
evaluated through investigating Rayleigh-Taylor instability
and oscillating drop. All two-dimensional convective and
viscous dominated test cases are also simulated using a sepa-
rately developed diffuse interface solver for comparison pur-
poses.

3.1 One-dimensional tin-air shock-tube problem

To begin with, we simulate a one-dimensional tin-air inter-

action problem previously studied by Bo and Grove [44] and
originated from the experiments carried out by Holmes et al.
[50]. The computational domain with a length of 10 units is (a) Density
covered by uniform one-dimensional mesh of 1024 cells. The
initial distribution of the physical variables and values of the
thermodynamic constants are given in below.

ìï(0.001, 0, 1; 1.4, 0) x < 0.5

(r , u , P; g , P¥ ) = í 6 5
ïî(11.77, -228,10 ; 3.27, 1.495 ´ 10 ) else.
(30)

The main challenge in this test case is due to the presence of

large density and pressure ratios as well as a significant con-
(b) Pressure
trast in thermodynamic constants across the interface. Conse-
quently, the acoustic impedance of the liquid phase is 105
times larger than that of the gas phase, which makes this test
case difficult to handle. The results predicted by the developed
GFM solver on are demonstrated in Fig. 3. As time proceeds,
the discontinuity of the physical variables initially coincident
with the interface, transforms into a left-running shock-wave
in the gas phase and a right-moving rarefaction wave in the
liquid phase. As can be seen, our numerical predications are
almost coincident with the results obtained using exact Rie-
mann solver.
Grid convergence is studied for this test case using four se- (c) Velocity
quentially refined uniform meshes with grid spacing ranging Fig. 3. One-dimensional tin-air interaction problem. The solid red-line
from 0.009766 to 0.078125. L1 error norms calculated based represents the GFM results and the dotted black line indicates the exact
on pressure distribution are demonstrated in Table 1. Fig. 4 results.
shows convergence trend of normalized error norms obtained
for different grid spacing. Error norms are observed to de-
crease with increasing mesh refinement, indicating linear con- sider the famous shock-bubble interaction of Haas and
vergence of the numerical algorithm. Sturtevant [51]. This test case is also studied numerically by
several researchers to verify their numerical algorithm [52-54].
The problem is set up in a symmetrical computational do-
3.2 Shock-bubble interaction
main of length 320 mm and width 44.5 mm with an underly-
To demonstrate the ability of our developed GFM in de- ing Cartesian grid of resolution 0.125 mm. A cylindrical bub-
tailed visualization of complex interfacial evolutions, we con- ble of R22 ideal gas located at the axis of symmetry is encom-
 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593 1587

(a) 55 μs

Fig. 4. Demonstration of convergence trend of normalized error norms

for sequential grid refinements. The dashed line represents linear slope
in grid convergence.

(b) 135 μs

Fig. 5. Initial flow configuration of shock-bubble interaction.

passed by air ideal gas with the same pressure (Fig. 5). The
atmospheric air is separated from the post-shock air region by
(c) 187 μs
a left-moving shock wave of Mach 1.72, initially situated at a
50 mm distance from the bubble center. The initial conditions
of the problem as well as thermodynamic constants are given
in below.

ì(1.59 ´ 105 ,1.686, -113.5;1.4 ) post-shock air

ï
( P, ρ, u; γ ) = ïí (105 ,1.225,0;1.4 ) pre-shock air
ï
ïî (10 ,3.863,0;1.249 )
5
R22 bubble .
(31)
Our results, obtained using both ghost fluid and diffuse in-
terface methods, are presented in Fig. 6. Due to higher density
and lower specific heat, the sound speed in the surrounding air
is higher than that in R22 bubble. Therefore, as the shock hits
the upstream side of the bubble, the refracted shock in the R22
bubble curls backward, lagging behind the shock-wave travel-
ling in the air (Fig. 6(a)). At 135 μs, a pair of shock waves
reflected from the top and bottom walls are clearly distin-
guished moving toward the interface (Fig. 6(b)). In later times,
the refracted shock-wave converges to a focal point in the
bubble near the downstream side of the bubble (Fig. 6(c)).
Moreover, at 187 μs the two branches of the diffracted waves
have intersected each other forming a cross located on the
centerline. At 247 μs, the focused refracted waves have ex-
panded radially generating a circular front outside the gas
(d) 247 μs
Fig. 6. Numerical results for shock-bubble interaction. The upper part
of the numerical schlieren images shows the GFM obtained results,
and the lower part shows the diffuse interface obtained counterpart.
bubble (Fig. 6(d)).
It is noteworthy that the velocity difference in post-shock
flow of R22 and the surrounding air at the initial stages, in-
duces Kelvin-Helmholtz type instabilities (Fig. 6(b)). These
instabilities lead to the growth of interfacial ligaments at later
stages (Figs. 6(c) and (d)). The mentioned intricate deforma-
tions of interface are not clearly observable in the correspond-
ing results from the diffuse interface approach. In conclusion,
employing the ghost fluid algorithm leads to remarkably im-
proved results over those obtained by the diffuse interface
approach while maintaining the key physical characteristics of
the fluid flow.
1588 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593
(a) Density contours (b) Pressure contours
Fig. 7. Underwater explosion. The results are shown at t = 0.058.
3.3 Underwater explosion
In this problem, explosion of a high-pressure circular air
bubble in stationary water simulated by Shyue [55] and Bo
and Grove [44] is considered using both the ghost fluid and
diffuse interface algorithms. Initially the gas inside the bubble
located at the center of the domain, has the conditions stated
below
(r , u , v, P;g , P¥ ) = (1.241,0,0, 2.753 ´ 104 ;1.4,0)
while initial conditions for surrounding water is given as
(r , u , v, P;g , P¥ ) = (0.991,0,0,3.059;5.5,1.505 ´ 104 ).
All sides of the domain are modeled as walls and the prob-
lem is simulated using a uniform 200×200 grid. The results
from the developed ghost fluid solver are exhibited in Fig. 7.
We can see that the algorithms predict a radially outward
moving shock in the liquid phase, an inward running rarefac-
tion wave in the gaseous phase and the circular interface posi-
tioned in between these two waves. Moreover, as witnessed in
Fig. 8, density and pressure variations along the horizontal
centerline obtained using both ghost-fluid and diffuse inter-
face solvers agree well with the results of Bo and Grove [44].
However, the density gradient across the interface is noticea-
bly smeared in the results obtained using the diffuse interface
method compared to those of the ghost fluid approach.
3.4 Collapse of gas bubble in water
This test case is concerned with the collapse of a cylindrical
air cavity ran over by a shock in water medium. This problem
was first experimented by Bourne and Field [56], and has
been a subject of several numerical assessments [57-59]. Re-
cently, Hawker and Ventikos [60] conducted a thorough study
on various aspects of under-water shock-cavity interaction.
The simulation is performed in a square domain of size
0.024 m which is covered by a 200×200 uniform grid. The gas
bubble of radius 3 mm is situated at the domain center sur-
rounded by water in atmospheric pressure. A shock wave
initially located at x = 6.5 mm, moves toward the air bubble
(a) Density distribution
(32)
(b) Pressure distribution
(33) Fig. 8. Density and pressure distribution along the horizontal center-
line. The black line represents the GFM results, while the DIM results
are shown by red line. The symbols represent the results of Bo and
Grove [44].
with a speed of 681.5 m/s (Fig. 9). Non-reflecting boundary
condition is imposed on the left and right sides of the compu-
tational domain, while top and bottom sides are assumed to be
slip walls.
Initial conditions for this problem are given below.
ì(1323 kg/m3 , 1.9 GPa) post-shock water
ï
(r , P ) = í(1000 kg/m3 , 1 atm) pre-shock water (34)
ï(1.2 kg/m3 , 1 atm) air bubble .
î
This benchmark problem is simulated by both ghost fluid
and diffuse interface solvers. However, only ghost fluid results
are demonstrated in Fig. 10. After the incident shock impacts
the bubble, a shock wave is transmitted in the gaseous me-
dium (the medium with lower acoustic impedance), while a
reflected rarefaction is formed travelling in water with higher
acoustic impedance (Fig. 10(a)). As time proceeds, the air
cavity involutes and a water jet is formed driving through the
bubble on the upstream side (Fig. 10(b)). The water jet ad-
vances through the cavity until it finally impacts the down-
stream side of the interface (Fig. 10(c)), splitting the bubble in
two lobes (Fig. 10(d)). At the hitting moment, maximum ve-
 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593
Fig. 9. Schematic representation of the computational domain in un-
derwater cavity collapse.
(a) 55 μs (b) 135 μs
(c) 187 μs (d) 247 μs
Fig. 10. Density fields in interaction of shock with cavity collapse in
water.
locity of the water jet obtained by ghost fluid and diffuse inter-
face simulations is 2846 m/s and 2916 m/s, respectively. The
corresponding ghost fluid value is clearly closer to the maxi-
mum water jet velocities of 2850 m/s (Nourgaliev et al. [58])
and 2830 m/s (Bo and Grove [44]). Furthermore, since the
water jet impacts the stationary water adjacent to the down-
stream side of the bubble, a severe blast is generated having a
characteristic pressure peak at the impact position. The pres-
sure peak is predicted to be 7.71 GPa and 5.67 GPa for ghost
fluid and diffuse interface methods respectively. Clearly, the
ghost fluid obtained value is more consistent to the value 10.1
GPa reported by Nourgaliev et al. [58]. It is observed that the
physical process predicted by our ghost fluid solver is qualita-
tively consistent with those observed in experimental study of
Bourne and Field [56]. Due to the initialization of the shock-
wave in water, a weak compressive wave is seen in density
1589
(a) DIM (b) GFM
Fig. 11. Comparison of interface quality in underwater cavity collapse.
Fig. 12. Mass conservation history in shock-cavity interaction.
contours in the post-shock water region. This wave do not
affect the flow patterns and shock-cavity interaction character-
istics as mentioned by Hawker and Ventikos [60].
From Fig. 11, the superior performance of the ghost fluid
approach to the diffuse interface is evident. In Fig. 11(a), just
before the splitting occurs, the phase interface captured by the
ghost fluid approach is distinct and the integrity of the bubble
is maintained. On the other hand, as can be seen in Fig. 11(b),
a mixed zone is formed along the horizontal centerline indicat-
ing the incapability of the diffuse interface approach in resolv-
ing the bisection clearly.
Furthermore, mass conservation history of the GFM results,
plotted in Fig. 12, indicates that our ghost fluid algorithm has
a comparable accuracy to other sophisticated methods devel-
oped for simulation of compressible multiphase flows. These
numerical methods include front-tracking method of Terashi-
ma and Tryggvason [57], adaptive characteristic based match-
ing of Nourgaliev et al. [58], and volume of fluid based GFM
of Bo and Grove [44].
3.5 Rayleigh-Taylor instability
To investigate how our ghost fluid solver works in captur-
ing the interface in the presence of viscous stresses and gravi-
tational force, Rayleigh-Taylor instability of two immiscible
fluids is simulated. The initial conditions of this test case are
1590 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593
(a) Ghost fluid method
(b) Diffuse interface method
Fig. 13. Density Fields in Rayleigh-Taylor instability. The times are
0.5, 0.7 and 0.9.
taken from the Rayleigh-Taylor instability studied by
Terashima and Tryggvason [57]. The problem is initially con-
figured in a rectangular domain of width 1m and height 4 mm,
discretized by a uniform mesh of 150×600 computational cells.
The top part of the domain is occupied by the heavy fluid with
a density of 1.225 kg/m3 while the light fluid with its density
equal to 0.1694 kg/m3 is situated in the lower part. Both fluids
have a viscosity of 0.00313 Pa.s and the gravitational accel-
eration is set to 9.8 m/s2. Top and bottom boundaries are mod-
eled as walls, and periodic boundary is imposed on the left and
right sides of the domain. The interface is initially perturbed
by the use of y = 2 + 0.05 * cos ( 2 * p * x ) .
As demonstrated in Fig. 13, the heavy fluid gradually pene-
trates the bottom area, making the light fluid ascend through
the vertical sideways. Also, the famous mushroom shape of
the interface is clearly distinguished at the later time stages.
Moreover, as shown in Fig. 14, the spike position versus time
diagram determined from our ghost fluid and diffuse interface
results agrees reasonably well with that predicted in the nu-
merical study of Terashima and Tryggvason [57].
Fig. 14. Comparison of spike motion in Rayleigh-Taylor instability.
3.6 Oscillating drop
The last problem upon which we test our ghost fluid solver,
involves the oscillations of a two-dimensional ellipsoidal drop
due to the presence of surface tension. This test case is a
benchmark problem to evaluate the accuracy of multi-phase
flow solvers accounting for surface tension [61, 62].
An ellipsoidal liquid drop with major and minor axes of 3.0
and 2.0 is initially at rest in gaseous medium. Surface tension
coefficient is set equal to 342 N/m and physical properties of
the liquid phase are
3 -3
ïì(100 kg/m ; 1.8 ´ 10 Pa.s) water
(r ; m ) = í 3 -5
. (35)
ïî(1 kg/m ;1.93 ´ 10 Pa.s). air
The drop oscillates due to an initial imbalance created by
the surface tension forces. During this process initial potential
energy due to surface tension forces is completely converted
into kinetic energy as the drop attains a circular shape. Subse-
quently, kinetic energy is converted back to potential energy
as the drop attains its initial elliptic shape. Fig. 15 shows the
periodic oscillations which are damped in time due to viscous
forces. Fig. 16 depicts the kinetic energy of the oscillating
drop as a function of time.
Fyfe et al. [63] developed a relationship based on Ray-
leigh’s linear stability theory to calculate oscillation frequency
(ωn) and time period of the oscillation τ of the non-circular
drop as given below
σ
ωn 2 = (n3 - n) (36)
( ρl + ρg ) R03
τ c = 2π / ωn (37)
where ρl and ρg are liquid and gas density respectively, R0 is
the unperturbed radius and n is the mode of oscillation. For the
prescribed initial and physical conditions, from Eq. (37) ana-
lytical time period of the oscillation is 0.08878 s. Two differ-
ent grid resolutions are used to examine grid convergence of
 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593
(a) Initial condition (b) t = 0.25τc
(c) t = 0. 5τc (d) t = τc
Fig. 15. Volume Fraction contours and velocity vectors shown for
oscillating 2D drop during a time period.
Fig. 16. Kinetic energy versus time for oscillating drop problem simu-
lated using a 256×256 grid.
the computed solutions. The relative error in the numerically
computed time period is 6.9% for the 128×128 grid and 5%
for a 256×256 grid.
4. Conclusion
A ghost fluid solver was developed and applied to a variety
of compressible multiphase flows such as shock-wave domi-
nated problems, shock-interface interaction, gravity driven
viscous flows, and interfacial flows with surface tension ef-
fects. A comprehensive assessment of the method was con-
ducted through several test problems with different flow char-
acteristics including multiphase shock-tube problem, shock-
bubble interaction, air bubble collapse in water, and underwa-
ter explosion, Rayleigh-Taylor instability, and oscillating drop.
To further evaluate the interface resolution capabilities of our
ghost fluid method, most of the test cases were also simulated
1591
using a diffuse interface solver. The predictions of the flow
features and interface evolution were in good agreement with
available numerical and experimental data. Also, compared to
the results obtained using the diffuse interface approach, the
ghost fluid method clearly improves the precision of interface
capturing. Generally, the presented computational methodol-
ogy is concluded to be a robust and promising approach for
numerical investigation of compressible multiphase flows.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by Research Council of the Uni-
versity of Tehran. Additional support was provided by Iranian
National Science Foundation (INSF) under contract number
92032415.
Nomenclature------------------------------------------------------------------------
ρ : Density
u,v : Cartesian velocity components
E : Specific total energy
P : Pressure
f : Volume fraction
e : Specific internal energy
γ,P∞ : Thermodynamic constants
c : Sound speed
U : Vector of conservative variables
F,G : Vectors of convective fluxes
Fv,Gv : Vectors of viscous fluxes
S : Vectors of source terms
References
[1] J. C. Hermanson, Dynamics of supersonic droplets of vola-
tile liquids, AIAA Journal, 45 (3) (2007) 730-733.
[2] R. Saurel and O. Lemetayer, A multiphase model for com-
pressible flows with interfaces, shocks, detonation waves and
cavitation, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 431 (2001) 239-271.
[3] E. Johnsen and T. Colonius, Shock-induced collapse of a gas
bubble in shockwave lithotripsy, The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 124 (4) (2008) 2011-2020.
[4] A. Murrone and H. Guillard, A five equation reduced model for
compressible two phase flow problems, Journal of Computa-
tional Physics, 202 (2) (2005) 664-698.
[5] R. Saurel, F. Petitpas and R. A. Berry, Simple and efficient
relaxation methods for interfaces separating compressible fluids,
cavitating flows and shocks in multiphase mixtures, Journal of
Computational Physics, 228 (5) (2009) 1678-1712.
[6] F. Gibou, L. Chen, D. Nguyen and S. Banerjee, A level set
based sharp interface method for the multiphase incompressible
Navier–Stokes equations with phase change, Journal of Com-
putational Physics, 222 (2) (2007) 536-555.
[7] A. Prosperetti and G. Tryggvason, Computational methods for
multiphase flow, Cambridge University Press (2007).
[8] I.-L. Chern, J. Glimm, O. McBryan, B. Plohr and S. Yaniv,
1592 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593
Front tracking for gas dynamics, Journal of Computational
Physics, 62 (1) (1986) 83-110.
[9] J. B. Bell, P. Colella and M. L. Welcome, Conservative front-
tracking for inviscid compressible flow, Proc. in 10th Compu-
tational Fluid Dynamics Conference: AIAA, Honolulu, Hawaii,
USA (1991) 814-822.
[10] S. O. Unverdi and G. Tryggvason, A front-tracking method
for viscous, incompressible, multi-fluid flows, Journal of Com-
putational Physics, 100 (1) (1992) 25-37.
[11] J. Glimm, J. W. Grove, X. L. Li, K.-M. Shyue, Y. Zeng and Q.
Zhang, Three-dimensional front tracking, SIAM Journal on
Scientific Computing, 19 (3) (1998) 703-727.
[12] G. Tryggvason, B. Bunner, A. Esmaeeli, D. Juric, N. Al-
Rawahi, W. Tauber, J. Han, S. Nas and Y.-J. Jan, A front-
tracking method for the computations of multiphase flow,
Journal of Computational Physics, 169 (2) (2001) 708-759.
[13] R. Scardovelli and S. Zaleski, Direct numerical simulation of
free-surface and interfacial flow, Annual Review of Fluid Me-
chanics, 31 (1) (1999) 567-603.
[14] M. Sussman, P. Smereka and S. Osher, A level set approach
for computing solutions to incompressible two-phase flow,
Journal of Computational Physics, 114 (1) (1994) 146-159.
[15] W. J. Rider and D. B. Kothe, Reconstructing volume tracking,
Journal of Computational Physics, 141 (2) (1998) 112-152.
[16] J. E. Pilliod and E. G. Puckett, Second-order accurate volume-
of-fluid algorithms for tracking material interfaces, Journal of
Computational Physics, 199 (2) (2004) 465-502.
[17] Y.-Y. Tsui, S.-W. Lin, T.-T. Cheng and T.-C. Wu, Flux-
blending schemes for interface capture in two-fluid flows, In-
ternational Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 52 (23) (2009)
5547-5556.
[18] A. Cervone, S. Manservisi and R. Scardovelli, An optimal
constrained approach for divergence-free velocity interpolation
and multilevel VOF method, Computers & Fluids, 47 (1)
(2011) 101-114.
[19] C. Wu, D. Young and H. Wu, Simulations of multidimen-
sional interfacial flows by an improved volume-of-fluid method,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 60 (2013)
739-755.
[20] X. Jiang, G. Siamas, K. Jagus and T. Karayiannis, Physical
modelling and advanced simulations of gas–liquid two-phase
jet flows in atomization and sprays, Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science, 36 (2) (2010) 131-167.
[21] H. K. Myong, Numerical simulation of multiphase flows with
material interface on an unstructured grid system, Journal of
Mechanical Science and Technology, 26 (5) (2012) 1347-1354.
[22] Y. Renardy and M. Renardy, PROST: a parabolic reconstruc-
tion of surface tension for the volume-of-fluid method, Journal
of Computational Physics, 183 (2) (2002) 400-421.
[23] K. Yokoi, A practical numerical framework for free surface
flows based on CLSVOF method, multi-moment methods and
density-scaled CSF model: Numerical simulations of droplet
splashing, Journal of Computational Physics, 232 (1) (2013)
252-271.
[24] I. Ginzburg and G. Wittum, Two-phase flows on interface
refined grids modeled with VOF, staggered finite volumes, and
spline interpolants, Journal of Computational Physics, 166 (2)
(2001) 302-335.
[25] M. M. Francois, S. J. Cummins, E. D. Dendy, D. B. Kothe, J.
M. Sicilian and M. W. Williams, A balanced-force algorithm
for continuous and sharp interfacial surface tension models
within a volume tracking framework, Journal of Computational
Physics, 213 (1) (2006) 141-173.
[26] S. Osher and R. Fedkiw, Level set methods and dynamic im-
plicit surfaces, Springer Science & Business Media, 153 (2003).
[27] M. Gorokhovski and M. Herrmann, Modeling primary atomi-
zation, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 40 (2008) 343-366.
[28] J. Sethian and P. Smereka, Level set methods for fluid inter-
faces, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 35 (1) (2003) 341-
372.
[29] D. Enright, R. Fedkiw, J. Ferziger and I. Mitchell, A hybrid
particle level set method for improved interface capturing,
Journal of Computational Physics, 183 (1) (2002) 83-116.
[30] M. Herrmann, A balanced force refined level set grid method
for two-phase flows on unstructured flow solver grids, Journal
of Computational Physics, 227 (4) (2008) 2674-2706.
[31] B. Ningegowda and B. Premachandran, A Coupled Level Set
and Volume of Fluid method with multi-directional advection
algorithms for two-phase flows with and without phase change,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 79 (2014)
532-550.
[32] S. Shin, Direct numerical simulation of multiphase flow for
arbitrary geometry using level contour reconstruction method,
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 23 (7) (2009)
1795-1800.
[33] E. Olsson, G. Kreiss and S. Zahedi, A conservative level set
method for two phase flow II, Journal of Computational Phys-
ics, 225 (1) (2007) 785-807.
[34] D. Hartmann, M. Meinke and W. Schröder, The constrained
reinitialization equation for level set methods, Journal of Com-
putational Physics, 229 (5) (2010) 1514-1535.
[35] E. Brun, A. Guittet and F. Gibou, A local level-set method
using a hash table data structure, Journal of Computational
Physics, 231 (6) (2012) 2528-2536.
[36] R. P. Fedkiw, T. Aslam, B. Merriman and S. Osher, A non-
oscillatory Eulerian approach to interfaces in multimaterial
flows (the ghost fluid method), Journal of Computational Phys-
ics, 152 (2) (1999) 457-492.
[37] T. Liu, B. Khoo and K. Yeo, Ghost fluid method for strong
shock impacting on material interface, Journal of Computa-
tional Physics, 190 (2) (2003) 651-681.
[38] X. Y. Hu and B. C. Khoo, An interface interaction method for
compressible multifluids, Journal of Computational Physics,
198 (1) (2004) 35-64.
[39] T. Liu, B. Khoo and C. Wang, The ghost fluid method for
compressible gas–water simulation, Journal of Computational
Physics, 204 (1) (2005) 193-221.
[40] S. K. Sambasivan and H. Udaykumar, Ghost fluid method for
strong shock interactions Part 1: Fluid-fluid interfaces, AIAA
Journal, 47 (12) (2009) 2907-2922.
 S. Majidi and A. Afshari / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1581~1593
[41] S. K. Sambasivan and H. UdayKumar, Sharp interface simu-
lations with Local Mesh Refinement for multi-material dynam-
ics in strongly shocked flows, Computers & Fluids, 39 (9)
(2010) 1456-1479.
[42] S. K. Sambasivan and H. Udaykumar, A sharp interface
method for high-speed multi-material flows: strong shocks and
arbitrary materialpairs, International Journal of Computational
Fluid Dynamics, 25 (3) (2011) 139-162.
[43] R. W. Houim and K. K. Kuo, A ghost fluid method for com-
pressible reacting flows with phase change, Journal of Compu-
tational Physics, 235 (2013) 865-900.
[44] W. Bo and J. W. Grove, A volume of fluid method based
ghost fluid method for compressible multi-fluid flows, Com-
puters & Fluids, 90 (2014) 113-122.
[45] S. Majidi and A. Afshari, Towards numerical simulations of
supersonic liquid jets using ghost fluid method, International
Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 53 (2015) 98-112.
[46] S. Gottlieb and C.-W. Shu, Total variation diminishing
Runge-Kutta schemes, Mathematics of Computation of the
American Mathematical Society, 67 (221) (1998) 73-85.
[47] E. F. Toro, Riemann solvers and numerical methods for fluid
dynamics: a practical introduction, Springer Science & Busi-
ness Media (2009).
[48] A. S. D. Rallu, A multiphase fluid-structure computational
framework for underwater implosion problems, Stanford Uni-
versity (2009).
[49] X. Hu, N. Adams and G. Iaccarino, On the HLLC Riemann
solver for interface interaction in compressible multi-fluid flow,
Journal of Computational Physics, 228 (17) (2009) 6572-6589.
[50] R. L. Holmes, G. Dimonte, B. Fryxell, M. L. Gittings, J. W.
Grove, M. Schneider, D. H. Sharp, A. L. Velikovich, R. P.
Weaver and Q. Zhang, Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth:
experiment, simulation and theory, Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
389 (1999) 55-79.
[51] J.-F. Haas and B. Sturtevant, Interaction of weak shock waves
with cylindrical and spherical gas inhomogeneities, Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, 181 (1987) 41-76.
[52] S. Kokh and F. Lagoutiere, An anti-diffusive numerical
scheme for the simulation of interfaces between compressible
fluids by means of a five-equation model, Journal of Computa-
tional Physics, 229 (8) (2010) 2773-2809.
[53] J. J. Quirk and S. Karni, On the dynamics of a shock–bubble
interaction, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 318 (1996) 129-163.
[54] K.-M. Shyue, A wave-propagation based volume tracking
method for compressible multicomponent flow in two space
dimensions, Journal of Computational Physics, 215 (1) (2006)
219-244.
[55] K.-M. Shyue, An efficient shock-capturing algorithm for
compressible multicomponent problems, Journal of Computa-
tional Physics, 142 (1) (1998) 208-242.
[56] N. Bourne and J. Field, Shock-induced collapse of single
cavities in liquids, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 244 (1992)
1593
225-240.
[57] H. Terashima and G. Tryggvason, A front-tracking/ghost-
fluid method for fluid interfaces in compressible flows, Journal
of Computational Physics, 228 (11) (2009) 4012-4037.
[58] R. R. Nourgaliev, T.-N. Dinh and T. G. Theofanous, Adaptive
characteristics-based matching for compressible multifluid dy-
namics, Journal of Computational Physics, 213 (2) (2006) 500-
529.
[59] C. Turangan, A. Jamaluddin, G. Ball and T. Leighton, Free-
Lagrange simulations of the expansion and jetting collapse of
air bubbles in water, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 598 (2008) 1-
25.
[60] N. Hawker and Y. Ventikos, Interaction of a strong shock-
wave with a gas bubble in a liquid medium: a numerical study,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 701 (2012) 59-97.
[61] S. Quan and D. P. Schmidt, A moving mesh interface tracking
method for 3D incompressible two-phase flows, Journal of
Computational Physics, 221 (2) (2007) 761-780.
[62] S. Shin, S. Abdel-Khalik, V. Daru and D. Juric, Accurate
representation of surface tension using the level contour recon-
struction method, Journal of Computational Physics, 203 (2)
(2005) 493-516.
[63] D. E. Fyfe, E. S. Oran and M. Fritts, Surface tension and vis-
cosity with Lagrangian hydrodynamics on a triangular mesh,
Journal of Computational Physics, 76 (2) (1988) 349-384.
Sahand Majidi received his B.S. degree
from K. N. Toosi University of Tech-
nology in 2006 and his Master of Sci-
ence in mechanical engineering from
University of Tehran in 2009. He is a
Ph.D. student of Mechanical Engi-
neering at University of Tehran. His
research interests include multiphase
flows, high performance computing, and solver development
for compressible multi-fluid flows.
Asghar Afshari received his Master of
Science in mechanical engineering from
Sharif University of Technology in 1999
and his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering
from Michigan State University in 2006.
Upon completion of post-doctoral studies
at UIUC’s department of Computational
Science and Engineering, he was appoin-
ted as an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering at
University of Tehran in 2008. His general research interests
are in the areas of turbulence, combustion, multiphase flows,
and development and application of high fidelity numerical
models.