4.7 Article

Fluid flow simulations meet high-speed video: Computer vision comparison of droplet dynamics

Journal

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
Volume 522, Issue -, Pages 48-56

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2018.03.053

Keywords

Lattice Boltzmann; Simulation; Droplet; High-speed video; Experimental; Hydrophobic; Computer vision

Funding

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework programme [NMP-2013-1.4-1, 604005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hypothesis: While multiphase flows, particularly droplet dynamics, are ordinary in nature as well as in industrial processes, their mathematical and computational modelling continue to pose challenging research tasks - patent approaches for tackling them are yet to be found. The lack of analytical flow field solutions for non-trivial droplet dynamics hinders validation of computer simulations and, hence, their application in research problems. High-speed videos and computer vision algorithms can provide a viable approach to validate simulations directly against experiments. Experiments: Droplets of water (or glycerol-water mixtures) impacting on both hydrophobic and super hydrophobic surfaces were imaged with a high-speed camera. The corresponding configurations were simulated using a lattice-Boltzmann multiphase scheme. Video frames from experiments and simulations were compared, by means of computer vision, over entire droplet impact events. Findings: The proposed experimental validation procedure provides a detailed, dynamic one-on-one comparison of a droplet impact. The procedure relies on high-speed video recording of the experiments, computer vision, and on a software package for the analyzation routines. The procedure is able to quantitatively validate computer simulations against experiments and it is widely applicable to multiphase flow systems in general. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available