Acta Appl Math (2014) 129:1–21

DOI 10.1007/s10440-013-9827-2

Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture

Model (HEM)

A. Bernard-Champmartin · O. Poujade · J. Mathiaud ·

J.-M. Ghidaglia

Received: 17 October 2012 / Accepted: 19 April 2013 / Published online: 29 May 2013
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract We present here a model for two phase flows which is simpler than the 6-
equations models (with two densities, two velocities, two temperatures) but more accurate
than the standard mixture models with 4 equations (with two densities, one velocity and
one temperature). We are interested in the case when the two-phases have been interacting
long enough for the drag force to be small but still not negligible. The so-called Homo-
geneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) that we present is dealing with both mixture
and relative quantities, allowing in particular to follow both a mixture velocity and a rel-
ative velocity. This relative velocity is not tracked by a conservation law but by a closure
law (drift relation), whose expression is related to the drag force terms of the two-phase
flow. After the derivation of the model, a stability analysis and numerical experiments are
presented.

Keywords Mixture model · Drift closure · Two phase flows · Darcy law

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010) 76T10 · 76N99 · 65Z05 · 65M06 · 41A60

A. Bernard-Champmartin () · O. Poujade · J. Mathiaud

CEA, DAM, DIF, 91297 Arpajon, France
e-mail: champmar@cmla.ens-cachan.fr

A. Bernard-Champmartin · J. Mathiaud · J.-M. Ghidaglia

CMLA, ENS Cachan, CNRS, UniverSud, 61 Avenue du Président Wilson, 94230 Cachan, France
Present address:
A. Bernard-Champmartin
INRIA Sophia Antipolis Méditerranée, 2004, route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France
Present address:
A. Bernard-Champmartin
LRC MESO, ENS Cachan/CEA, DAM, DIF, 61 avenue du Président Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex,
France
2 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

1 Introduction

Dispersed flows (i.e. droplets in a carrying fluid) as described in [21] are ubiquitous in nature
and in industrial applications (see e.g. [3, 12, 13, 15, 23, 27, 30, 34]). During the past fifteen
years, the continuous increase of computational power has triggered the interest of applying
computational fluid dynamics to flows involving several phases. However a full description
of these flows requires such a tremendous amount of computational power that one must
resort to simplified models.
These flows are governed by the exchanges between the two phases due to temperature,
pressure or velocity differences. Depending on the level of equilibrium between the two
phases and the degree of complexity that one wants to conserve, different types of model are
available (cf. [37] or [9] for a complete review). A first possibility consists in describing all
fields for each phase. This leads to a set of 6 (or 7) equations depending on whether or not
equilibrium in pressure is assumed (see e.g. [11, 32, 36]). Due to the numerical complexity
of such models (including the presence of stiff source terms, high number of equations, loss
of hyperbolicity in some cases), simpler models are often preferred when the two phases
are closed to equilibrium. Some of those simpler models are a good compromise between
accuracy and simplicity, since they follow the evolution of mixture quantities between the
two phases and allow to deal with less equations thanks to equilibrium assumptions on some
quantities. This paper is devoted to the description of a model of that type.
The so-called Homogeneous Equilibrium Model (HEM) presented in this paper is dedi-
cated to two-phase flows in which a small volume fraction of solid particles moves through
a continuous fluid phase (either gas or liquid). In the following, particles will be thought
of as a heavy fluid [26, 27]. The two phases are considered as a mixture [1, 15, 28]: the
model is given in the form of a continuity equation for the density of each phase and a single
momentum equation, which contains an additional term representing the effect of velocity
differences between the phases. A formula based on the study of the balance between the
forces for the dispersed phase is required for the computation of the relative velocity (called
a drift relation). This formula is obtained thanks to experiments as in [4, 14, 19, 39, 43], or
using simplifying assumptions in order to find an approximate solution for the equation sat-
isfied by the relative velocity [1, 17, 22, 25]. The basic assumption is that a local equilibrium
is established over short times scale and short spatial length scales: as a consequence, we
suppose that the movement of the two phases can be described by a unique equation for the
mean velocity with a corrective factor, i.e. the relative velocity ur . The drift formula which
is obtained depends on the specific problem under study, in particular on the form of the
drag force term (see [33] for a summary of the different closure laws used in the literature).
We are interested here in the case of tin droplets surrounded by air, with a disequilibrium
between the velocities of the particles and the air. In our specific applications, the chain
of events starts when the particles are released in the gas. During the first stage, when the
relative velocity between the particles and the surrounding gas is large, a detailed descrip-
tion of the motion of each particle (via a numerical weighting process [2, 10, 26, 27]) is
required because no equilibrium exists. On the contrary, the last stage involves additional
physical phenomena and it becomes computationally out of reach to go on with the detailed
description of the particles. One then resorts to a two-fluid mixture computation (see e.g. [4,
5, 9, 21, 29, 37]) where the solid particles are averaged out so that a standard 4-equations
model can be used. During the transition between these two stages, the goal of the HEM
model is to keep track of a disequilibrium in velocity between the two phases without intro-
ducing a 6 or 7-equations model. The HEM simulation is initialized at the end of the spray
simulation and its output is given as an input for the standard 4-equations model simula-
tion. The first section (Sect. 2) of this paper is devoted to the derivation of the model and
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 3

to a first mathematical analysis of the model. The second one (Sect. 3) explains the numeri-
cal implementation starting from an already existing code solving the standard 4-equations
model thanks to a Lagrange+Remap scheme [40]. Finally, some numerical experiments are
presented in order to compare the HEM code with other existing codes (Sect. 4).

2 Model: from Two-Phase Flows Towards Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model

(HEM)

From now on, a physical quantity z relative to the heavy fluid (resp. light fluid), also called
dispersed (resp. continuous) phase, is denoted z+ (resp. z− ). Then, the averaged volume
fraction of both kinds of fluid is called α ± (α + + α − = 1), the density ρ ± , the mass fraction
± ρ±
c± = α+ ρα+ +α + − ±
− ρ − (c + c = 1), the velocity u , the specific energy (sum of the specific

internal energy and specific kinetic energy) E ± = e± + 1/2 u± 2 , and the total enthalpy H ±
(H ± := E ± + ρp± , where p is the pressure). In the following x (resp. t ) is the space (resp.
time) variable and ∇ refers to the space derivative.
In two-phase models with 6 equations, the physical quantities for each fluid satisfy two
scalar equations (mass conservation and energy conservation) and one vector equation (mo-
mentum conservation) [21, 26]:
   
∂t α ± ρ ± + ∇ · α ± ρ ± u± = 0, (1)
   
∂t α ± ρ ± u± + ∇ · α ± ρ ± u± ⊗ u± + α ± ∇p = ±F D,Fluid + α ± ρ ± g, (2)
   
∂t α ± ρ ± E ± + ∇ · α ± ρ ± H ± u± + p ∂t α ± = ±QE + α ± ρ ± g · u± , (3)

where QE represents the heat exchanges between phases (which depend on the difference
of temperature between the two fluids) and g is the external gravity acceleration. For our ap-
plications, the drag force experienced by the particles, F D,Fluid , is mainly due to turbulence.
∗ + − ρ+ρ−
Finally, the drag force term is defined as: F D,Fluid = θρ Cr ∗ αα+ ρα+ +α − ρ − |ur |ur . It depends on

α+ ρ + ρ−
θρ = −
+ −= − + (4)
α ρ c ρ
∗
and Cr ∗ is proportional to the ratio between the drag coefficient CD (see [6] for a definition)
∗
and the mean radius of the particles r ( Cr ∗ = 38 CrD ). Moreover, an ideal isobaric mixing is
imposed in order to close the set of Eqs. (1)–(3):
     2
p = P ± ρ±, T ± , with T ± = T ± ρ ± , e± and e± = E ± − 1/2u±  . (5)

Let us define two additional quantities: the averaged mixture density ρ:

1 c+ c−
= + + −, (6)
ρ ρ ρ
+ −
i.e. ρ = ρ − cρ+ +ρ
ρ
+ c− (ρ can be rewritten in terms of an algebraic average of the specific

quantity of each phase ρ = α + ρ + + α − ρ − ) and the averaged total energy E = c+ E + +

c− E − [15, 41, 42] (all the other mean quantities are built on the same model, that is z =
c+ z+ + c− z− , using the mass fraction c± ). We also build relative quantities zr := z− − z+
4 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

that take into account the disequilibrium between the two phases (except ρr which is defined
as ρ1r := ρ1− − ρ1+ ).
The two-phase flows equations (1)–(3) imply after tedious algebraic computations:

∂t ρ + ∇ · (ρ u) = 0, (7)
 
1 − cr2
∂t (ρ cr ) + ∇ · ρ cr u + ρ ur = 0, (8)
2
 
1 − cr2
∂t (ρ u) + ∇ · ρ u ⊗ u + ρ ur ⊗ ur + ∇ p = ρ g, (9)
4
 
    1 1 C∗
∂ t u r + u − · ∇ u− − u + · ∇ u+ + −
− +
∇ p = − ∗ θρ |ur | ur ,
ρ ρ r
(10)
   
p cr 1 − cr2
∂t (ρ E) + ∇ · ρ H u + ρ er + − u2r + u · ur ur = ρu · g. (11)
ρr 2 4

We recall that the averaged specific enthalpy is defined by H := c+ H + + c− H − = E + pρ .

Due to the relation c+ + c− = 1, we have: c± = (1 ∓ cr )/2. By noting F D ,the drag force of
the mixture:
C ∗ 1 − cr2
F D = ρθρ |ur |ur , (12)
r∗ 4
combining the equations (7)–(11) and using the relation checked by the mean internal and
1−c2
total energies (E = e + 12 |u|2 + 12 4 r |ur |2 ), Eq. (11) can equally be replaced by:
     
1 − cr2 ρ 1 − cr2
∂t (ρe) + ∇ · ρ eu + er ur +p ∇ ·u+∇ · ur = F D · ur , (13)
4 ρr 4
(see [8, Sect. 1.1.4, pp. 45–52] for more details on the algebraic manipulations).
Equation (10) was brought to the fore in [15, 17, 24, 35, 42] in order to show that a
straightforward algebraic closure of the relative velocity can be found if it is assumed that
∂t ur + (u− · ∇)u− − (u+ · ∇)u+ is negligible compared to the remaining two terms. Ne-
glecting that particular set of terms requires both that the time scale variations of the relative
velocity and that the length scales characteristic of the fluctuations of u± are small enough.
If those assumptions hold, the algebraic closure of the relative velocity reads:
 
r∗ 1 ∇p
ur = − , (14)
C θρ ρr |∇p|1/2
∗

and Eq. (10) can be replaced by this statement. In accordance with intuition, the relative
velocity should vanish if ρ + = ρ − and it should be parallel to ∇p and point in the same
direction if ρ + > ρ − (a heavy fluid falls in a lighter fluid) and in the opposite direction if
ρ + < ρ − (a light fluid rises in a heavier fluid). More explanations on how to get the formula
(14) are given in Sect. 2.1.
The final HEM model is a combination of (7)–(9), (13) and of the formula (14) for the
relative velocity:

∂t ρ + ∇ · (ρ u) = 0, (15)
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 5
 
1 − cr2
∂t (ρ cr ) + ∇ · ρ cr u + ρ ur = 0, (16)
2
 
1 − cr2
∂t (ρ u) + ∇ · ρ u ⊗ u + ρ ur ⊗ ur + ∇ p = ρ g, (17)
4
     
1 − cr2 ρ 1 − cr2
∂t (ρe) + ∇ · ρ eu + er ur +p ∇ ·u+∇ · ur = F D · ur ,
4 ρr 4
(18)
 
r∗ 1 ∇p
ur = − . (19)
C ∗ θρ ρr |∇p|1/2

In order to close the system, the missing equation in relative energy is replaced by an as-
sumption of equilibration of temperatures (T ± = T in (5), which is reasonable in our appli-
cations, cf. [26]). The HEM equations are consequently equipped with a closure law which
gives the pressure p (and the specific quantities of each fluid: ρ ± , e± ) in terms of ρ, e and
cr : [p, ρ ± , e± ] = f ( ρ1 , e, cr ).

2.1 The Drift Formula for ur (14) Viewed as a Subgrid Model

We present here a more detailed derivation of the closure formula (14) for the relative ve-
locity ur . Two arguments have already been used to obtain such a closure relation for the
relative velocity ur : first a heuristic approach based on experiments [20, 43], and secondly
an approximation consisting in neglecting both the spatial and temporal derivative terms in
Eq. (10).1 Here we solve directly a simplified version of (10) coupled with suitable initial
conditions [16].
Since the HEM model has to be discretized eventually in a 2D setting, we solve a simpli-
fied equation satisfied by ur at a scale of a cell of the 2D Cartesian mesh of the numerical
scheme (described in the following Sect. 3).
2
Thanks to the relation ∇ |u|2 − (u · ∇)u = u ∧ (∇∧u), we only assume that the term
∂t ur − u− ∧ (∇∧u− ) + u+ ∧ (∇∧u+ ) in (10) is negligible with respect to ( ρ1− − ρ1+ )∇p.
Then, we solve the simplified equation for ur
 
|u− |2 − |u+ |2 1 1 C∗
∇ + − ∇p = − θρ |ur |ur , (20)
2 ρ− ρ+ r∗

at the scale of a cell of the mesh. Thus the physical quantities ∇p, ρ ± , c± can be considered
∗
as constants and the same holds for the ratio Cr ∗ θρ . The cell is assumed to be rectangular of
volume x1 x2 in the coordinate (x1 , x2 ). To solve Eq. (20) on a cell, an entering condition
is needed for the two velocities. The following conditions are chosen on the axis x2 = 0 in
order to simplify the problem2 and to remove the dependence on the first variable:
       
x V x 0
u− 1 = , u+ 1 = , (21)
0 0 0 0

1 Note that this can be sustained by a dimensional analysis using a Chapman-Enskog expansion of the equation
as in [1, 15, 18, 28], [8, Sect. 1.2.2, p. 58].
2 This axis coincides with the bottom edge of the cell since the origin of the space reference is put on the
bottom left corner of the cell.
6 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

y
Fig. 1 Distension of the cell for the resolution of (20) (under mixture hypothesis: r ∗2 → +∞), the outgoing
solution is then defined on the line y2 → +∞

where V is assumed to be a positive constant. In the following, we solve asymptotically (20)

coupled with the entering conditions (21) under a mixture assumption (i.e. the mean radius
of particles is small compared to the characteristic length of the cell: r ∗ min(x1 , x2 )).
We want to find the outgoing value at the end of the cell, i.e. the value of the two velocities
C∗θ
u+ and u− on the axis x2 = x2 . We perform the change of variable y = r ∗ ρ x which
leads to a distension of the cell thanks to the mixture assumption. Thus the solution we are
C∗θ
looking for is an asymptotic solution of Eq. (20) (when y2 = r ∗ ρ x2 → +∞) with the initial
conditions (21) written in terms of the y variable (Fig. 1). Thanks to the previous change of
variable, by defining u− = V v − , u+ = V v + , and the constant vector:
 
r∗ 1 1
Π := − ∗ − ∇p, (22)
C θρ V 2 ρ − ρ +

equation (20) rewrites:

|v − |2 − |v + |2   
∇ − Π = −v − − v +  v − − v + , (23)
2
with the initial conditions on the axis y2 = 0 (cf. (21)):3
       
− y1 1 + y1 0
v = , v = . (24)
0 0 0 0

Thus, v ± depend only on the variable y2 . Equation (23) is decoupled in two parts:
  
Π1 = v − − v +  v1− − v1+ , (25)
 −2 
|v | − |v + |2   
∂ y2 − Π2 = v − − v +  v2− − v2+ . (26)
2

3 The initial incoming conditions (24) has been chosen in order to simplify the problem: indeed if v is a
solution of the problem (23) with the initial conditions (24), then w(y1 , y2 ) = v(y1 + c, y2 ) is also a solution
of the problem, for any arbitrary constant c.
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 7

In the following we solve these two equations. Detailed proofs can be found in Appendix.
Firstly, solving (24)–(25) leads to Π1 = 1 and

∂p  
r ∗ ∂x 1 1
V= − ∗ 1 − . (27)
C θρ ρ − ρ +

Detailed can be found in Appendix.

In order to solve the second equation (26), we use the following change of variables:

(v2− (y2 ) − v2+ (y2 ))2

θ (y2 ) = arg sinh ≥ 0, θ (0) = 0, (28)
2
(using initial conditions (24), we have v2± (0) = 0). We can also rewrite (28) as
√
v2− − v2+ =  2 sinh θ , (29)

with  = ±1.
With this change of variable (28), we can rewrite the differential equation (26) with the
initial conditions (24) as:
d
(E + w) = L(E), (30)
dy2
E(0) = 1; w(0) = 0, (31)

with the quantities:

 
E(y2 ) = exp θ (y2 ) , (32)
 
  θ (y2 )
w(y2 ) = 2 v1+ + v2+  exp 2θ (y2 ) − 1 exp − , (33)
2
  
L(F ) := 2 Π2 −  F 2 − 1 . (34)

Remark 1 In (26), we can rewrite the quantities v1− − v1+ and |v − − v + | in term of the
variable θ :
 
θ  − 
v1− − v1+ = exp − , v − v +  = exp θ . (35)
2 2

A short proof is given in Appendix.

Thus, we obtain (30)–(31) directly from (26) thanks to (29) using the Remark 1.
For solving the system (30)–(31), we need two extra hypothesis:

v2± and v1+ tend to finite limits when y2 → +∞,

dvi± (36)
→ 0, i = 1, 2.
dy2 y2 →+∞

These hypotheses are reasonable from the point of view of the modeling since the condition
y2 → +∞ corresponds to the value of the velocities at the output of the cells.
8 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

Proposition 1 We assume that the velocities and their derivatives satisfy assumption (36).
Then, the solution E of the system (28), (30)–(34) has a finite limit when y2 → +∞, which
is given by:

E → Π22 + 1. (37)
y2 →+∞

Moreover, the quantity  of Eq. (29) is given by:

Π2
= . (38)
|Π2 |

The proof of this Proposition is detailed in Appendix.

We now can turn back to the definition of E (32) and get:

1  
θ ∗ := lim θ = ln 1 + Π22 , (39)
y2 →+∞ 2

and thus: Π2 =  exp(2θ ∗ − 1) ( = sign(Π2 ), cf. (38)). By passing to the limit in (35), we
get thanks to (39) that:

1
v1− − v1+ → . (40)
y2 →+∞ (1 + Π22 )1/4

Moreover, thanks to (29) and as  = Π2

|Π2 |
(38):
 
Π2 θ  Π2
v2− − v2+ = exp − exp(2θ ) − 1 → . (41)
|Π2 | 2 y2 →+∞ (1 + Π 2 )1/4
2

We then turn back to the initial variables:

 
  1 1
u− − u+ = V v − − v + → V , (42)
y2 →+∞ Π2
(1 + Π22 )1/2

thanks to (40) and (41). Since Π1 = 1, thus u− − u+ → V Π

|Π|1/2
. We finally obtain the
y2 →+∞
formula for the relative velocity (14), using the definition of Π (22) since:
  
Π r∗ 1 1 1 ∇p
= − − .
|Π|1/2 C ∗ θρ ρ − ρ + V |∇p|1/2

2.2 Stability Analysis

In this section, we shortly study some stability properties of our system [we omit gravity
in the following and limit ourselves to the 1D equations with some simplifications: we take
a smoothed version of the expression of the relative velocity ur = λ ((∂ p)∂x2 +δ)
p
1/4 instead of
x
Eq. (14), where δ > 0 is a small parameter. Besides, we consider a barotropic pressure law,
i.e. the pressure is a function of ρ: p = f (ρ), which allows us to remove the equation of
energy (13)]. Due to the dependence w.r.t. ∇p of ur (14), diffusion appears in the momentum
equation (9).
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 9

We study a linearized system of the HEM model around a steady state V . The corre-
sponding linearized system writes:

∂W ∂W ∂ 2W
+ A(V ) = D(V ) 2 , (43)
∂t ∂x ∂x
where W are the fluctuations around the steady state V (V = V + W ), Vi are the compo-
nents of V (V1 = ρ, V2 = ρu and V3 = ρcr ). Besides, the matrices A and D depend on the
steady state V :
⎛ ⎞
0 1 0
⎜ V2 2 2V ⎟
A(V ) = ⎜ − + f (V1 ) V12 0 ⎟ , (44)
⎝ V1 2 ⎠
V2 V3 V3 V2
−V2 V1 V1
1

and
⎛ ⎞
0 0 0
⎜ 0 0 0⎟
D(V ) = ⎝ ⎠. (45)
V 2
− λ2 V1 f (V1 )δ −1/4 + λ2 f (V1 ) V31 δ −1/4 0 0

Taking the Fourier transform w.r.t. the space variable, we get:

∂
Ŵ (ξ, t) = −iξ A(V )Ŵ (ξ, t) − ξ 2 D(V )Ŵ (ξ, t). (46)
∂t
For ξ ∈ R fixed, we can write:
∂
Ŵ (ξ, t) = −M(V , ξ )Ŵ (ξ, t), (47)
∂t
where M(V , ξ ) = ξ 2 D(V ) + iξ A(V ).
Introducing the H p space embedded with the norm

    
Ŵ (t, .)p p = Ŵ (t, ξ )2 1 + |ξ |2 p dξ,
H

(for p > 1), we can bound the solution of (47) with respect to the initial condition:
   
Ŵ (t, .) p ≤ cstŴ (0, .) p+1 , (48)
H H

provided that f (V1 ) > 0 (where V1 is the steady state of ρ): we recover therefore the well-
known hyperbolicity condition for the Euler system of compressible (barotropic) fluids.
Let us briefly present a proof of (48): actually, the eigenvalues of the matrix M(V , ξ )
V  V
are iξ [ V12 ± f (V1 )] and iξ V21 , so that the matrix is diagonalizable and we can bound the
associated transfer matrix P (V , ξ ) and its inverse P −1 (V , ξ ) for ξ , δ fixed by:
 
P ∞ ≤ cst|ξ |, and P −1 ∞ ≤ cst |ξ |. (49)

Since the solution of (47) is: Ŵ (ξ, t) = P (V , ξ )e−iξ tDiag(V ,ξ ) P −1 (V , ξ ), where

Diag(V , ξ ) is the diagonal matrix filled up with the eigenvalues, we get (48) out of (49).
We have checked that our HEM model is linearly stable (around a steady state) under the
assumption f (V1 ) > 0.
10 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

3 Numerical Scheme

We now present our solver. It is based on a Lagrange+Remap method described in the article
from P. Woodward and P. Colella [40] and called the BBC scheme. It was already imple-
mented in the framework of a standard 4-equations mixture model in a study code of the
French Atomic Agency (CEA).
We had therefore to compute an extra equation for the concentration (8) and additional
terms (depending on ur ) in the momentum and internal energy equations (9)–(13). The
scheme is implemented in 2D but described here in 1D for the sake of simplification. The
space discretization is performed by using a staggered grid. Thus, the mean velocity u is
known at the edge of the cell [designed by a half entire subscript: left (resp. right) edge is
denoted by i − 1/2 (resp. i + 1/2) for a cell i], whereas the other physical quantities are
known at the center (denoted by an entire subscript). The scheme is analogous to a leap-
frog scheme in space (counterbalanced by an artificial viscosity in order to stabilize it [7]).
We keep in mind the strategy of the original BBC scheme (for the 4-equations model) in
order to obtain a BBC scheme adapted to the HEM equations: the new quantities, i.e. the
relative concentration cr and the relative velocity ur are defined at the center of each cell.
We assume that the pressure p is implicitly solved and depends on ρ, cr et e. This resolution
also gives us the quantities ρ ± and er which depend on the same variables. Moreover, the
staggered grid strategy requires to know quantities at edges whereas they are computed at
the center of the cells. This is done by a simple interpolation: for a quantity defined at the
ς +ς
center ς , we get its value on the edge thanks to the relation ςi+1/2 := i 2 i+1 . This scheme is
a predictor-corrector during the Lagrangian phase, where we solve the system of the HEM
equations (15)–(19) written in Lagrangian coordinate in 1D, that is:

1 1
Dt = ∂x u, (50)
ρ ρ
 
1 1 − cr2
Dt cr = − ∂x ρ ur , (51)
ρ 2
 
1 1 1 − cr2 2
D t u = − ∂x p − ∂x ρ ur + g, (52)
ρ ρ 4
 
8r 1 ∂x p
ur = − , (53)
CD θρ ρr |∂x p|1/2
    
1 1 − cr2 p ρ 1 − cr2 FD
Dt e = − ∂x ρer ur − ∂x u + ∂x ur + · ur , (54)
ρ 4 ρ ρr 4 ρ

where Dt := ∂t + u∂x is the Lagrangian derivative. We introduce the notation mi , known
as mass step:

mi = xρin , (55)

where x is the space step. mi is kept constant since the mass is conserved during the
Lagrangian phase. We define the function λ(t, x):
 
8r 1
λ(t, x) = − (t, x), (56)
CD∗ θρ (t, x) ρr
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 11

corresponding to the expression appearing in the term of pressure gradient in Eq. (53). This
expression is naturally defined at the center of the mesh (since θρ (4) and ρ1r are cell center
quantities). Besides, the drag force of the mixture FD (12) appearing in the equation (54) is
also known at the center of the mesh.
We first compute at time n + 1/4, the mean velocity u:
1−cr2 2 n 1−c2
n+1/4 t pin − pi−1
n
t (ρ ur )i − (ρ 4 r u2r )ni−1 t
ui−1/2 − uni−1/2 = − − 4
+ g.
2 mi + mi−1 2 mi + mi−1 4
(57)

Then, using u at time n + 1/4, we get the other physical quantities at time n + 1/2
(prediction step):
n+1/4 n+1/4
1 1 t ui+1/2 − ui−1/2
n+1/2
= n + , (58)
ρi ρi 2 mi
1−c2 1−c2
t (ρ 2 r ur )ni+1 − (ρ 2 r ur )ni−1
crn+1/2 = crni − ,
i
4 mi
  1−c2 1−c2
n+1/2 1 1 t (ρer 4 r ur )ni+1 − (ρer 4 r ur )ni−1
ei = ein − pin n+1/2 − n − (59)
ρi ρi 4 mi
1−cr2 1−cr2  n
t ( ρρr 4
ur )ni+1 − ( ρρr 4
ur )ni−1 t FD
− pin + · ur .
4 mi 2 ρ i

The pressure, the specific densities of each fluid and the relatives quantities ur and er are
then obtained thanks to:
   
n+1/2 1 n+1/2 n+1/2 1 n+1/2 n+1/2
pi =f n+1/2
, ei , cri , e n+1/2
ri = g n+1/2
, ei , cri ,
ρi ρi
   
−,n+1/2 1 n+1/2 n+1/2 +,n+1/2 1 n+1/2 n+1/2
ρi = d n+1/2 , ei , cri , ρi = b n+1/2 , ei , cri , (60)
ρi ρi
n+1/2 n+1/2
n+1/2 pi+1 − pi−1 n+1/2 n+1/2
un+1/2
ri = λi √ / pi+1 − pi−1 ,
2x
where f , g, d and b are generic functions depending on the underlying EOS. Then, we get
the velocity at time t n+1/2 :
n+1/2 n+1/2
n+1/2 pi − pi−1
ui−1/2 = uni−1/2 − t
mi + mi−1
1−cr2 2 n+1/2 1−c2 n+1/2
(ρ ur )i − (ρ 4 r u2r )i−1 t
− t 4
+ g. (61)
mi + mi−1 2
Finally, we get all the quantities at time n + 1, using the values at time n + 1/2, which
completes the Lagrangian phase (correction step):
n+1/2
n+1
xi−1/2 = xi−1/2
n
+ tui−1/2 , (62)
12 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

1 1 t  n+1/2 n+1/2 
= n + ui+1/2 − ui−1/2 ,
ρin+1 ρi mi
1−cr2 n+1/2 1−c2 n+1/2
t (ρ ur )i+1 − (ρ 2 r ur )i−1
crn+1 = crni − 2
,
i
2 mi
  1−c2 n+1/2 1−c2 n+1/2
n+1/2 1 1 t (ρer 4 r ur )i+1 − (ρer 4 r ur )i−1 (63)
ein+1 = ein − pi − n −
ρin+1 ρi 2 mi
1−cr2 n+1/2 1−cr2 n+1/2  n+1/2
n+1/2 t
( ρρr 4
ur )i+1 − ( ρρr 4
ur )i−1 FD
− pi + t · ur ,
2 mi ρ i
n+1/2
i−1/2 = 2ui−1/2 − ui−1/2 .
un+1 n

The pressure, the specific densities of each fluid and the relatives quantities ur and er are
finally deduced at time t n+1 thanks to:
   
1 1
pi = f
n+1 n+1 n+1
, ei , cri , eri = g n+1 , ei , cri
n+1 n+1 n+1
ρin+1 ρi
   
1 +,n+1/2 1
ρi−,n+1 = d n+1 , ein+1 , crn+1 , ρ i = b , ei
n+1 n+1
, cri , (64)
ρi i
ρin+1
n+1
pi+1 − pi−1
n+1
un+1
ri = λn+1
i √ n+1
/ pi+1 − pi−1
n+1
.
2x
n+1/2
In Eqs. (60) and (64), λi (resp. λn+1
i ) corresponds to the discrete value of the function
λ(t, x) (56) at the cell i of the mesh and at time t n+1/2 (resp. t n+1 ). The following step is a
projection step allowing to recover the unknowns on the Cartesian grid. This procedure of
MUSCL type (Monotone Upwind Scheme for Conservation Law) is accurate up to second
order (cf. [38]).

Remark 2 The original BBC scheme for the Euler equations (dealing with only one material)
is second order in space and time [40]. In [8], it is proved (in the 1D case) that the extension
of the BBC scheme to the case of the Euler equations for mixture (that is to say, the standard
4-equations model) is also second order in space and time (cf. Sect. 2.2, p. 92). Moreover,
the Lagrangian step of the BBC scheme is only of first order when the HEM equations are
discretized. Details can be found in Sect. 2.4, p. 123 of [8].

4 Simulations

Results obtained with the HEM model are now presented using the BBC scheme described
above. For the discretization of the relative velocity (60) and (64), we use a limiter of MIN-
MOD type in order to bound the pressure gradient [31].

First case: Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities We consider an unstable case in which a heavy

fluid (water) is put on top of a lighter fluid (gas) and submitted to the gravity field. The
equations of state (EOS) are those of perfect gases. We initially perturb the border between
the two fluids and at the beginning, the pressure is taken uniformly equal to 105 (and the
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 13

Fig. 2 Test case configuration for the Rayleigh-Taylor instability

Fig. 3 Heavy fluid (in red, at left) above a lighter one (in blue, at right) with a single initial perturbation of
the border (gravity goes from the left to the right) (Color figure online)

relative velocity is thus taken as ur = 0). The mean velocity u is also taken as u = 0 (Fig. 2).
The box is 0.07 m by 0.1 m with N x = 56 and Ny = 60 [x = Lx/(N x + 1) (resp. y =
Ly/(Ny + 1)), with N x (resp. Ny) the number of points of discretization along the x (resp.
y) direction]. In Fig. 3, we observe that the initial perturbation leads to the growth of a
Rayleigh-Taylor mushroom. In Fig. 4, we can check that the mushrooms originate from
initial instabilities of the border.
14 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

Fig. 4 Heavy fluid (in red, at left) above a lighter one (in blue, at right) with an initial periodic perturbation
of the border (Color figure online)

In Fig. 3 as well as in Fig. 4, the relative velocity is equal to zero at the beginning. Then,
due to the instability, the pressure p evolves and the inherent pressure gradient is captured
by our HEM model thanks to the presence of relative velocity ur .

Barotropic simulations In the following, we consider now barotropic EOS in order to be

able to compare more easily our results with those coming out of other codes.
• Classical mixture limit of the HEM mixture model when the relative velocity tends
to zero:
Thanks to a dimensional analysis of the HEM equations, we have proved in [8] (cf.
Sect. 3.2, pp. 188–194) that the HEM mixture model degenerates towards the classical
Euler mixture equations (i.e. the standard 4-equations model) when the relative velocity
ur tends to 0. In order to check it at the numerical level, an initial strip of a mixture
of water and gas surrounded by gas is submitted to the gravity field with an initial mean
velocity u = 0 and a hydrostatic pressure (cf. Fig. 5). The exact EOS and the initialization
which are used can be found in [8, Sect. 4.2.1, pp. 200–202]. We compare the results
given by the classical mixture model and the HEM mixture model ur → 0. The results
are presented in Fig. 6: we see that when the mean radius of particles tends to zero (which
amounts to let ur become smaller and smaller, see Eq. (53)), the behavior of the HEM
model gets closer and closer to the one of the standard 4-equations model.
• Simulations of droplets of water submitted to a lateral wind:
The following test allows us to observe the response of the HEM model when both
the relative velocity ur and the mean velocity u are activated. We consider a rectangle of
droplets surrounded by air. The lateral wind, oriented from top to bottom is represented by
the mean velocity u: uy = −4.04 m s−1 . Moreover, due to gravity and hydrostatic pressure
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 15

Fig. 5 Test case for the

comparison of the behavior of the
HEM model when the relative
velocity is close to 0. The test
case is launched with a mean
velocity equal to zero and a
hydrostatic pressure on the light
fluid given by: p = P0 + ρ − gz,
where P0 = 105 Pa

Fig. 6 Evolution of the concentration of the heavy fluid (in red) with a standard 4-equations model and
with the HEM model, with different values of the mean radius of the particles. The pressure gradient is not
captured by the standard 4-equations model. For the HEM mixture model with a sufficient mean radius of the
droplets (rmean = 5 · 10−5 m), the induced relative velocity allows us to observe a specific behavior. On the
contrary, in the case of the HEM model with a smaller mean radius (rmean = 1 · 10−5 m), a smaller relative
velocity is induced and the behavior is closer to what is observed in the 4-equations model (Color figure
online)

effects, the velocity of the heavy fluid is not at equilibrium in the horizontal direction and
we have a relative velocity induced by the hydrostatic pressure (urx = −3.64 m s−1 ). In
Fig. 7, we present the initialization of the case in which barotropic EOS are considered
16 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

Fig. 7 Droplets of water

submitted to a wind and to the
gravity. The mean velocity is
uy = −4.04 m s−1 in the whole
domain and we take a hydrostatic
pressure of the light fluid:
p = P0 + ρ − gz, where
P0 = 105 Pa. On that case, we
perform comparisons of the
HEM mixture model with a
gas-droplets model (spray)

Fig. 8 Simulation of droplets of water submitted to a lateral wind and to gravity effects, obtained with the
HEM mixture model. The droplets are pushed towards the bottom due to the wind and towards the right due
to the gravity. The diffusion of the model spreads only a little the initial rectangle of droplets

with a perfect gas law for the air and the density of water is fixed (incompressibility is
assumed). The concentration of water is c+ = 8.6 · 10−2 in the rectangle of water.
In Fig. 8, we present the results given by the HEM model: as expected, the droplets
move along diagonal lines: they are subjected to the actions of both the gravity and the
lateral wind.
We compare in Fig. 9 the results obtained with the HEM model with a particle-gas
code (spray). Since the physics taken into account is not the same in the spray model and
in our HEM model, we can only perform qualitative comparisons. Although the evolution
of the particles is slightly faster with the HEM model, the global behavior is the same.
Without the relative velocity ur present in the HEM model, it would not be possible to
reproduce that kind of displacement along diagonal lines.
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 17

Fig. 9 Simulation of droplets of water submitted to a lateral wind and to gravity effects, obtained with the
spray code. The droplets are, as in the HEM model, pushed towards the bottom thanks to the wind and to the
right due to the gravity. They follow qualitatively the same trajectory although, the global velocities of the
rectangle do not exactly match those observed with the HEM model

5 Conclusion

We have proposed in this paper an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture model (HEM) in

which we consider the two-phase flows as a mixture. The closure law of the relative velocity
ur allows us to take into account a velocity disequilibrium between the fluids and to avoid the
use of a 6-equations model for two phase flows. This model is valid when the drag force had
time to act on the fluids. We tested it by performing numerical experiments and comparing
with codes for other models. It would be interesting to use this model as a transition model
during the thermalization in velocity between the two phases, in order to get a complete
chain of simulation.

Acknowledgements A.B.C. acknowledges partial support of ANR CBDif-Fr, Collective behaviour & dif-
fusion: mathematical models and simulations ANR-08-BLAN-0333-01.

Appendix: Proof of the Resolution of System (25)–(26) of Sect. 2.1 for the Asymptotic
Resolution on ur

Proof of the obtention of the value of V (27) thanks to the resolution of the system (24)–
(25) Putting to the square Eq. (25) and defining the variables X = (v1− − v1+ )2 and Y =
(v2− − v2+ )2 , we have to solve the following equation:

X 2 + Y X − Π12 = 0, (65)
√
−Y + Y 2 +4Π12
in terms of the variable X with Y fixed. Since X > 0 by definition, we get X = 2
Π12 2
and as X also satisfies X = X+Y
(cf. (65)), then X = √2Π21 . Replacing now X and Y
Y+ Y +4Π12
18 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

by there values and since v1− − v1+ has the same sign as Π1 (cf. (25)), we have:
√
2Π1
v1− − v1+ = , (66)
(v2− − v2+ )2 + (v2− − v2+ )4 + 4Π12

and thanks to (25),


 −  (v2− − v2+ )2 + (v2− − v2+ )4 + 4Π12
v − v +  = √ . (67)
2

As Π (22) is a constant vector, using the initial conditions (24), we deduce from (67) that
Π1 = 1 > 0. Thus, thanks to the definition of Π (22), we have ∂x ∂p
1
< 0 since all the quan-
tities are supposed to be positive and ρ − < ρ + , which gives us the value of V (V > 0 by
hypothesis):

∂p  
r ∗ ∂x 1 1
V= − ∗ 1 − . (68)
C θρ ρ − ρ +


Proof of Remark 1 As Π1 = 1, and replacing in (66)–(67) v2− − v2+ by its value (29), we
immediately get that v1− − v1+ = exp(− θ2 ) and |v − − v + | = exp θ2 . 

Proof of Proposition 1 The first point is checked immediately using the definition of E (29),
(32) and with the assumption (36), we have:

E → L3 , (69)
y2 →+∞

where L3 is a constant. Besides, we also get that the derivative of E tends toward 0:

dE
→ 0. (70)
dy2 y2 →+∞

These two limits will allow us to prove the second part of the Proposition using the
derivative of the function w (33):
√
dw dv + dv + E2 − 1 dE E 1/2
= 2 1 E −1/2 + 2 2  √ + 2v2+ √
dy2 dy2 dy2 E dy2 E 2 − 1
   dE 1
− v1+ + v2+  E 2 − 1 . (71)
dy2 E 3/2

– Reasoning by contradiction, we get the value of  ( = ±1 thanks to its definition (29)).

We suppose that  = − |Π
Π2
2|
, thus in system (30)–(31), the quantity L(E) (34) writes:
 
Π2  2
L(E) := 2 Π2 + E −1 . (72)
|Π2 |
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 19

Then, since we have a finite limit for E (69), the quantity L(E) also tends to a finite limit
L4 = 0 when y2 → +∞ (since Π2 = 0). Besides, as we know the limit of the derivative
of E (70) (which is 0), using (30), we have:

dw
→ L4 = 0. (73)
dy2 y2 →+∞

But relation (71) shows that dw

→ →
dy2 y →+∞
0 using the condition on the velocities in the
2
output of the cells (36), and (69)–(70). This leads to a contradiction and thus  = Π2
|Π2 |
.

It remains to get the limit of E. As  = Π2

|Π2 |
, we have thanks to (34) that L(E) → 2(Π2 −
y2 →+∞
Π2
|Π2 |
− 1). Since we have
L23 + = 0 (using (70) and (71)), necessarily:
dw
limy2 →+∞ dy 2
dE
dy2
L(E) → 0, and by the definition of L(E) (34), we get that:
y2 →+∞

E → Π22 + 1, (74)
y2 →+∞

which ends the Proof of Proposition 1. 

References

1. Ambroso, A., Chalons, C., Coquel, F., Galié, T., Godlewski, E., Raviart, P.A., Seguin, N.: The drift-
flux asymptotic limit of barotropic two-phase two-pressure models. Commun. Math. Sci. 6(2), 521–529
(2008)
2. Baranger, C.: Modélisation, étude mathématique et simulation des collisions dans les fluides complexes.
PhD thesis, École Normale Supérieure de Cachan—ENS Cachan (2004)
3. Baudin, M., Berthon, C., Coquel, F., Masson, R., Tran, Q.H.: A relaxation method for two-phase flow
models with hydrodynamic closure law. Numer. Math. 99(3), 411–440 (2005)
4. Bendiksen, K.H., Maines, D., Moe, R., Nuland, S.: The dynamic two-fluid model OLGA: theory and
application. SPE Prod. Eng. 6(2), 171–180 (1991)
5. Bestion, D.: The physical closure laws in the Cathare code. Nucl. Eng. Des. 124(3), 229–245 (1990)
6. Boudin, L., Desvillettes, L., Motte, R.: A modeling of compressible droplets in a fluid. Commun. Math.
Sci. 1(4), 657–669 (2003)
7. Caramana, E.J., Shashkov, M.J., Whalen, P.P.: Formulations of artificial viscosity for multi-dimensional
shock wave computations. J. Comput. Phys. 144(1), 70–97 (1998)
8. Champmartin, A.: Modélisation et étude numérique d’écoulements diphasiques: modélisation d’un
écoulement homogène équilibré: modélisation des collisions entre gouttelettes à l’aide d’un mod-
èle simplifié de type BGK. PhD thesis, École Normale Supérieure de Cachan—ENS Cachan.
http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00598571/, February 2011
9. Drew, D.A., Passman, S.L.: Theory of Multicomponent Fluids. Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol.
135. Springer, New York (1999)
10. Dukowicz, J.K.: A particle-fluid numerical model for liquid sprays. J. Comput. Phys. 35(2), 229–253
(1980)
11. Enwald, H., Peirano, E., Almstedt, A.E.: Eulerian two-phase flow theory applied to fluidization. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 22, 21–66 (1996)
12. Faille, I., Heintzé, E.: A rough finite volume scheme for modeling two-phase flow in a pipeline. Comput.
Fluids 28(2), 213–241 (1999)
13. Fjelde, K.K., Karlsen, K.H.: High-resolution hybrid primitive-conservative upwind schemes for the drift
flux model. Comput. Fluids 31(3), 335–367 (2002)
14. França, F., Lahey, R.T. Jr.: The use of drift-flux techniques for the analysis of horizontal two-phase flows.
Int. J. Multiph. Flow 18(6), 787–801 (1992)
20 A. Bernard-Champmartin et al.

15. Galié, T.: Couplage interfacial de modèles en dynamique des fluides. Application aux écoulements
diphasiques. PhD thesis, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris VI (2009)
16. Ghidaglia, J.M., Poujade, O.: Modélisation d’écoulements fluide-particules par des modèles Euler-Euler
conservatifs. Technical report, Eurobios (2006)
17. Guillard, H., Duval, F.: A Darcy law for the drift velocity in a two-phase flow model. J. Comput. Phys.
224(1), 288–313 (2007). Special issue dedicated to professor Piet Wesseling on the occasion of his
retirement from Delft University of Technology
18. Guillard, H., Duval, F., Latche, J.C., Panescu, R.: Numerical multiphase modeling of bubbly flows. Ann.
Univ. Ferrara 53(2), 243–253 (2007)
19. Hibiki, T., Ishii, M.: One-dimensional drift-flux model and constitutive equations for relative motion
between phases in various two-phase flow regimes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 46(25), 4935–4948 (2003)
20. Ishii, M.: One-dimensional drift-flux model and constitutive equations for relative motion between
phases in various two-phase flow regimes. Technical Report ANL-77-47, Argonne National Lab Report
(1977)
21. Ishii, M., Hibiki, T.: Thermo-Fluid Dynamics of Two-Phase Flow. Springer, New York (2006)
22. Ishii, M., Zuber, N.: Drag coefficient and relative velocity in bubbly, droplet or particulate flows. AIChE
J. 25(5), 843–855 (1979)
23. Longest, P.W., Oldham, M.J.: Numerical and experimental deposition of fine respiratory aerosols: devel-
opment of a two-phase drift flux model with near-wall velocity corrections. J. Aerosol Sci. 39(1), 48–70
(2008)
24. Manninen, M.: On the mixture model for multiphase flow. VTT Publications, Technical Research Centre
of Finland, 288 (1996)
25. Masella, J.M., Tran, Q.H., Ferre, D., Pauchon, C.: Transient simulation of two-phase flows in pipes. Int.
J. Multiph. Flow 24(5), 739–755 (1998)
26. Mathiaud, J.: Étude de systèmes de type gaz-particules. PhD thesis, École Normale Supérieure de
Cachan—ENS Cachan (2006)
27. O’Rourke, P.: Collective drop effects on vaporizing liquid sprays. PhD thesis, Princeton University
(1981)
28. Panescu, R.: Modélisation Eulerienne d’écoulements diphasiques à phase dispersée et simulation
numérique par une méthode volumes—éléments finis. PhD thesis, Université de Nice Sophia Antipo-
lis (2006)
29. Ramos, D.: Quelques résultats mathématiques et simulations numériques d’écoulements régis par des
modèles bifluides. PhD thesis, École Normale Supérieure de Cachan—ENS Cachan (2000)
30. Raymond, P.: Flica 4: A computer code for multidimensional thermal analysis of nuclear reactor core,
numerical methods for three-dimensional two-phase flow. Technical Report CEA-CONF-9030, Report
CEA (1987)
31. Roe, P.L.: Characteristic-based schemes for the Euler equations. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18, 337–365
(1986)
32. Romenski, E., Toro, E.F.: Compressible two-phase flows: two-pressure models and numerical methods.
Technical report, Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University, UK, Labo-
ratory of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Engineering, 38050, University of Trento, Italy (2004)
33. Schlegel, J., Hibiki, T., Ishii, M.: Development of a comprehensive set of drift-flux constitutive models
for pipes of various hydraulic diameters. Prog. Nucl. Energy 52(7), 666–677 (2010)
34. Sheppard, C.M., Morris, S.D.: Drift-flux correlation disengagement models: Part 1—Theory: analytic
and numeric integration details. J. Hazard. Mater. 44(2–3), 111–125 (1995). Consequence Modeling for
Plant Safety and Environmental Impact
35. Sokolichin, A., Eigenberger, G., Lapin, A.: Simulation of buoyancy driven bubbly flow: established
simplifications and open questions. AIChE J. 50, 24–45 (2004)
36. Staedtke, H., Franchello, G., Worth, B., Graf, U., Romstedt, P., Kumbaro, A., García-Cascales, J., Pail-
lère, H., Deconinck, H., Ricchiuto, M., Smith, B., De Cachard, F., Toro, E.F., Romenski, E., Mimouni, S.:
Advanced three-dimensional two-phase flow simulation tools for application to reactor safety (astar).
Nucl. Eng. Des. 235(2–4), 379–400 (2005)
37. Stewart, H.B., Wendroff, B.: Two-phase flow: models and methods. J. Comput. Phys. 56(3), 363–409
(1984)
38. Van Leer, B.: Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. 5. A second-order sequel to Go-
dunov’s method. J. Comput. Phys. 32(1), 101–136 (1979)
39. Wallis, G.: One Dimensional Two-Phase Flow. McGraw-Hill, New York (1969)
40. Woodward, P., Colella, P.: The numerical simulation of two-dimensional fluid flow with strong shocks.
J. Comput. Phys. 54(1), 115–173 (1984)
Modelling of an Homogeneous Equilibrium Mixture Model (HEM) 21

41. Youngs, D.L.: Numerical simulation of turbulent mixing by Rayleigh-Taylor instability. Physica D 12(1–
3), 32–44 (1984)
42. Youngs, D.L.: Modelling turbulent mixing by Rayleigh-Taylor instability. Physica D 37(1–3), 270–287
(1989)
43. Zuber, N., Findlay, J.A.: Average volumetric concentration in two-phase flow systems. J. Heat Transf.
87, 453–468 (1965)