Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Onsager-variational-principle-based Lattice Boltzmann Model For Three-phase Dielectric Fluid Flows

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read One variational principle yields consistent three-phase EHD equations.

desk verdict Promising three-phase EHD/LB framework, but the Onsager derivation breaks in Eq. (2.27c) and the convergence table is inconsistent—worth a careful revision, not desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05787 v1 pith:EX5EG6AN submitted 2026-08-06 physics.flu-dyn

Xinyue Liu , Xu Qian , Fang Xiong , Lei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn MSC 76T3076M2849S05
keywords LatticeBoltzmannmethodelectrohydrodynamicsthree-phaseflowsOnsagervariationalprinciplephase-fieldsurfacechargeconvectioncompounddropletCahn-Hilliardequation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that the coupled equations for three immiscible dielectric fluids under an electric field can be derived by minimizing a single variational objective, so that thermodynamic consistency and surface charge convection are built into the model rather than added by hand. It then seeks to demonstrate that these equations can be solved accurately by a lattice Boltzmann method that tracks interfaces and charge transport on a mesoscopic grid. If correct, the result is a numerical framework for three-phase electrohydrodynamic flows that respects energy dissipation and can handle compound droplets, coalescence, separation, and combined electric-shear effects without phenomenological closure assumptions. This matters because existing three-phase EHD simulations mostly couple the fields phenomenologically and often omit charge convection, which becomes significant at high electric Reynolds numbers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rayleighian $\mathcal{R} = \dot{F} + \Phi_F$, where $F$ is the total free energy of Eq. (2.6) (chemical, electrostatic, kinetic, and charge-diffusion contributions) and $\Phi_F$ is the dissipation function of Eq. (2.24). Minimizing $\mathcal{R}$ with respect to the independent fluxes $u$, $J_{\phi_i}$, and $J_D$ yields the constitutive relations (2.26) and closes the governing system (2.27). The charge-diffusion term $F_q = \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_\Omega q^2\,d\Omega$ is what endows the charge transport equation with the effective diffusion coefficient $\alpha$; without it, the Nernst-Planck-type equation would lack the $\nabla(\alpha\nabla q)$ contribution. The numerical machinery is a lattice Boltzmann scheme with four distribution functions, using second-order isotropic finite differences for gradients and a permittivity interpolation that keeps the electric body force regular across diffuse interfaces.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to compute the total free energy rate along a closed-domain simulation trajectory under Eq. (2.27); if $\dot{F} > 0$ ever occurs, the discrete solution contradicts the claimed dissipation guarantee. Alternatively, at high electric Reynolds number where surface charge convection is strong, comparing the predicted surface charge distribution and flow direction with high-fidelity experimental or direct numerical data would settle whether convection is captured without ad hoc assumptions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a closed system of governing equations for three-phase dielectric EHD flows obtained by minimizing a Rayleighian with respect to the fluid velocity, the phase-field fluxes, and the conduction current. That minimization produces the constitutive relations of Eq. (2.26): the body force as a sum of chemical-potential, Coulomb, and dielectric-gradient forces, the phase fluxes as an Onsager mobility matrix applied to chemical-potential gradients, and the conduction current augmented by a charge-diffusion contribution. Substituting these relations into the Navier-Stokes, Cahn-Hilliard, Poisson, and charge-transport equations yields the coupled system (2.27), which the paper argues intrinsically satisfies the second law and reproduces the two-phase EHD model when one phase vanishes. The accompanying lattice Boltzmann solver uses four distribution functions to solve the Cahn-Hilliard, hydrodynamic, electrostatic, and Nernst-Planck subproblems, and the paper reports that it matches analytical electroosmotic profiles, equilibrium compound-droplet shapes, lens spreading geometries, and small-deformation compound-droplet deformation factors.

Load-bearing premise

The thermodynamic-consistency claim rests on treating the added charge-diffusion term $F_q = \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_\Omega q^2\,d\Omega$ as a legitimate free-energy contribution, even though the paper does not derive or calibrate the coefficient $\lambda$; if that term is not a true free energy, the 'strict' Onsager derivation no longer underpins the charge-transport equation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The governing system (2.27) is closed without phenomenological coupling assumptions, so surface charge convection is represented explicitly and should remain valid at arbitrary electric Reynolds numbers.
  • The reduction-consistency property means that whenever one phase vanishes, the model collapses to the established two-phase EHD phase-field equations, providing a path for benchmark comparisons across models.
  • The lattice Boltzmann solver reproduces analytical electroosmotic velocity and potential profiles, equilibrium compound droplet shapes, and lens contact angles and spreading lengths to within a few percent.
  • For compound droplets in a uniform field, the model predicts three distinct deformation regimes, matching small-deformation analytical solutions for each combination of permittivity and conductivity ratios.
  • Simulations of two compound droplets show electric-field-induced coalescence when the permittivity ratio exceeds the conductivity ratio and separation when the reverse holds, with outer shells and inner cores merging sequentially in the coalescence case.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the charge-diffusion energy term is accepted as a genuine free-energy contribution, the coefficient $\lambda$ (equivalently the effective charge diffusivity $\alpha$) becomes a free parameter that the paper leaves uncalibrated; a natural extension is to fit it against measured transient charge relaxation in three-phase droplets.
  • Because the derivation is variational rather than tied to a particular discretization, the same Onsager model could in principle be solved by finite-difference, finite-element, or spectral methods; the lattice Boltzmann solver is one numerical vehicle, not the only one.
  • The construction suggests a broader design rule: any additional dissipative or conservative mechanism in a multiphase EHD system could be added by inserting its free-energy contribution and dissipation rate into the Rayleighian, provided a reduction-consistent mobility matrix is maintained, although the paper does not pursue that extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a phase-field lattice Boltzmann model for three-phase dielectric electrohydrodynamic (EHD) flows, with the central claim that the governing equations are derived strictly from Onsager's variational principle and therefore thermodynamically consistent. The total free energy combines ternary Cahn–Hilliard, electrostatic, kinetic, and charge-diffusion contributions; minimization of the Rayleighian yields constitutive relations for the phase fluxes, conduction current, and body force. The authors then develop LB solvers for the Cahn–Hilliard, Navier–Stokes, electric-potential, and charge-transport equations, and validate the framework against analytical solutions for electro-osmotic flow, static compound droplets, liquid-lens spreading, and compound-droplet deformation in electric fields. The validated framework is applied to double-droplet coalescence/separation under electric fields and to combined EHD and shear flow.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the model would be a valuable contribution because it addresses three-phase thermodynamics and surface charge convection within a single variational framework, and the LB implementation offers a potentially scalable numerical route. The paper's strengths include the breadth of benchmark comparisons against external analytical solutions and the reduction-consistency construction of the mobility matrix. However, the manuscript contains a central mathematical inconsistency in the chemical potential used in the final governing equations and LB solver, which breaks the claimed strict derivation. In addition, the charge-diffusion term is introduced ad hoc and is not calibrated, and a key validation benchmark does not exercise the proposed charge-transport mechanism. The contribution is therefore conditional on correcting the variational derivation and re-validating the numerical results.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.18), (2.20), (2.27c)] Eq. (2.27c) does not follow from the free energy (2.18). The variational derivative of (2.18) with respect to φ_i is μ_i^{var} = (24/D)λ_i φ_i(φ_i−1/2)(φ_i−1) − (3/4)Dλ_i ∇²φ_i − (1/2)ε′(φ_i)|E|², which is also the expression appearing in the equilibrium condition (2.20). Eq. (2.27c) instead states μ_i = (24/D)λ_i φ_i²(1−φ_i)² + (3/4)Dλ_i|∇φ_i|² − (1/2)ε′(φ_i)|E|². The bulk term is four times the double-well energy density rather than its derivative, and the gradient term has the wrong sign and is a gradient energy density rather than a Laplacian. Since the LB solver in §3.1 uses this μ_i, the discretized Cahn–Hilliard system is not the variational model derived from (2.18). This is a direct break in the derivation chain and undermines the paper's central claim of strict thermodynamic consistency.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.26) and (2.27b)] The constitutive relation (2.26) for the body force F includes the term −(1/2)∇(α/σ q²), but the momentum equation (2.27b) omits this term. Because the term is a pure gradient, it can be absorbed into the pressure by redefining p; however, the manuscript does not state this, so the derivation as written is internally inconsistent. If the absorption is intended, it should be stated explicitly together with the corresponding redefinition of pressure.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (2.12) and §4] Eq. (2.12) introduces the charge diffusion free energy F_q = (λ/2)∫q² dΩ with an unspecified coefficient λ. This term is not derived from any microscopic or continuum argument, and the resulting charge diffusivity α = σλ in Eq. (2.27e) is never calibrated or reported in the numerical sections. The abstract's claim that the model is derived 'strictly' from the Onsager principle 'without requiring a priori assumptions' is therefore overstated: the thermodynamic consistency of the charge transport equation depends on this hand-inserted energy contribution. The authors should either provide a physical derivation or calibration for F_q, or substantially temper the claim.
  4. [§2.2, Eq. (2.20)] Eq. (2.20) is obtained by minimizing F with respect to φ_i as if the three order parameters were independent, but the model is defined under the constraint (2.5), φ_1+φ_2+φ_3=1. The correct equilibrium condition requires a Lagrange multiplier for this constraint, or an explicit statement that the common part of the μ_i is irrelevant because the mobility matrix has zero row sums. As written, μ_i ≡ const for each phase is not the constrained minimizer of (2.18). This issue propagates into the chemical potentials and Cahn–Hilliard fluxes in Eqs. (2.26)–(2.27c) and should be clarified.
  5. [§4.1 and §4.4] The validation does not actually exercise the surface-charge-convection mechanism claimed in the abstract. The electro-osmotic benchmark in §4.1 solves the Nernst–Planck equation (4.2) for ionic concentrations rather than the proposed charge transport model (2.27e)/(3.17)–(3.21). The compound-droplet deformation benchmarks in §4.4 compare against small-deformation analytical solutions (4.9)–(4.11), which are based on the leaky-dielectric approximation and do not include charge convection; those comparisons therefore cannot establish that the new convection terms are correctly captured. A benchmark with a finite electric Reynolds number, or an explicit comparison of charge transport with convection, is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (2.19)] The notation '∇2ϕ)' should be '∇²φ_i'; the subscript and closing parenthesis are missing in the printed equation.
  2. [§4.2, Table 1] The global relative errors in Table 1 are internally inconsistent: at δx=1/512, Err(φ1)=8.99×10⁻² is larger than at δx=1/256 (2.76×10⁻²), and the reported rates do not follow from the tabled values. For example, log2(2.76×10⁻²/8.99×10⁻²) is negative, not 1.62, and log2(3.40×10⁻²/1.03×10⁻³) is about 5.0, not 1.73. Please correct the table and recompute the convergence rates.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (3.6)] Eq. (3.6) ends with a stray ' , .' and the formula for F_i^j has an extra closing bracket; these LaTeX/punctuation errors should be cleaned up.
  4. [§4.2, Fig. 3] The label 'Prensent' in Fig. 3 should be 'Present'.
  5. [§1] The phrase 'computer techology' should be 'computer technology', and there are several other typographical errors throughout the introduction that should be corrected.
  6. [§4.4, Eqs. (4.9)–(4.11)] The symbols Γ, ζ, Π, and Λ_A−H are said to be documented in Ref. [13], but the paper should state at least their physical meaning or range to make the comparison self-contained for readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the governing equations are derived from a stated free energy and validated against external benchmarks, with only a minor self-citation and an ad hoc charge-diffusion input.

full rationale

The paper's governing equations (2.27) are derived from a stated free energy (2.18) and dissipation function (2.24) via minimization of the Rayleighian, and the benchmark validations in Section 4 compare against external analytical solutions (Debye-Hückel, Neumann's law, and compound-droplet deformation theory). No parameter is fitted to the predicted benchmark data. Two elements warrant note but do not constitute circularity. First, the charge-diffusion term F_q = (λ/2)∫q² dΩ (Eq. 2.12) is introduced as an input ansatz via citation [30]; the resulting charge-transport equation (2.27e) has a diffusion coefficient α = σλ, so the captured 'surface charge convection' is partly built in rather than predicted. This is a modeling assumption, not a statistical fit. Second, the reduction-consistency remark cites the authors' own prior two-phase model Ref. [43] as support; that self-citation is minor because the mobility matrix (2.28) enforces the reduction by construction and the benchmarks are independent. Separately, there is a correctness risk outside circularity: the chemical potential in (2.27c) is not the variational derivative of (2.18) exhibited in (2.19)-(2.20) — the bulk term differs and the gradient term has the wrong sign — so the claimed 'strict' Onsager derivation has a broken step. That is an internal inconsistency, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The thermodynamic consistency claim rests on several unproven modeling choices: the ad hoc charge diffusion energy (Eq. 2.12), the specific mobility matrix (Eq. 2.28), and the interpolation rules (Eqs. 2.29-2.30). Standard domain assumptions include incompressibility, isothermality, and the volume-fraction constraint (Eq. 2.5).

free parameters (4)
  • charge diffusion coefficient λ (or α = σλ) = not specified
    Introduced in Eq. (2.12) via the free energy F_q = (λ/2)∫q² dΩ; it controls the charge diffusion term in the transport equation (2.27e), and its value is left as a free model input.
  • reference mobility m0 = 0.01 in liquid lens test (Section 4.3)
    Defines the mobility matrix M_ij in Eq. (2.28); the value must be provided by the user and is not determined by the theory.
  • interface thickness D = 4.0 in liquid lens test; otherwise chosen from grid resolution
    Characteristic diffuse-interface thickness in the free energy (Eq. 2.7); it is a numerical/model parameter that controls interface width.
  • permittivity interpolation H(φ) = φ²(3−2φ) = structure fixed, coefficient-free
    The Hermite smoothing function in Eq. (2.30) is an ad hoc choice to stabilize the electric force at interfaces; it is not derived from physics.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Onsager's variational principle with symmetric dissipation matrix (ζ_ij = ζ_ji)
    Invoked in Section 2.1 (Eqs. 2.1-2.4) as the basis for constructing the Rayleighian and obtaining force balances.
  • domain assumption Incompressible, isothermal flow of three immiscible Newtonian phases with impermeable adiabatic boundaries
    Stated at the start of Section 2.2; the model is only valid in this regime.
  • domain assumption Order parameters satisfy φ1+φ2+φ3=1 with 0≤φ_i≤1
    Eq. (2.5), the constraint underlying the ternary phase-field representation.
  • ad hoc to paper Charge diffusion energy F_q = (λ/2)∫q² dΩ is a valid free energy contribution
    Eq. (2.12); introduced without derivation, and its coefficient is a free parameter.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical properties interpolate by volume averaging (ρ, μ, σ) and by Hermite smoothing for ε
    Eqs. (2.29)-(2.30); interpolation rules are chosen for numerical convenience and stability, not derived.
  • domain assumption Mobility matrix M_ij = −m0 φ_i φ_j (i≠j) with the diagonal set by row sum
    Eq. (2.28); the structure is posited to enforce reduction consistency to the two-phase model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Onsager-variational-principle-based Lattice Boltzmann Model For Three-phase Dielectric Fluid Flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EX5EG6AN

@misc{pith2026260805787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Onsager-variational-principle-based Lattice Boltzmann Model For Three-phase Dielectric Fluid Flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EX5EG6AN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05787}
}
read the original abstract

Multiphase electrohydrodynamic (EHD) flows play a crucial role in various engineering applications. However, existing numerical studies on three-phase electrohydrodynamic systems predominantly rely on phenomenological models, often neglecting thermodynamic consistency and critical surface charge convection mechanisms. To address these fundamental gaps, this paper proposes a thermodynamically consistent three-phase EHD model derived strictly from the Onsager variational principle. This theoretical framework intrinsically guarantees thermodynamic consistency and accurately captures complex multiphysics interactions without requiring a priori assumptions. Furthermore, a mesoscopic lattice Boltzmann method is developed to solve the proposed model, enabling the natural capture of interfacial evolution and charge transport. The accuracy of the numerical framework are rigorously validated against several benchmark cases, including electroosmotic flow in microchannels, the spreading of a three-phase liquid lens, the equilibrium of static compound droplet, and the deformation of compound droplet under uniform electric field. Using this validated framework, we investigate EHD applications, specifically simulating the complex dynamics of double droplet coalescence and separation under electric field, as well as the behavior of droplets subjected to combined EHD and shear flow. Overall, this work provides a robust, thermodynamically reliable numerical tool for exploring the highly nonlinear behaviors of multiphase EHD systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of electro-osmotic flow in a parallel-plate microchannel. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The profiles along the y coordinate for different ζ potentials: (a) velocity u; (b) potential φ. 4.2. A static ternary-phase compound droplet. To further validate the capability of the proposed LB method, we investigate a static ternary-phase compound droplet. The droplet configuration comprises an internal core (ϕ1) with a radius of Ra = 50δx, which is concentrically enveloped by an intermediate immiscible layer (ϕ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a)Equilibrium interfacial morphologies of the compound droplet: a compar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagram of the equilibrium lens morphology. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The equilibrium states of lens with different surface tension ratios: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Physical model of a three-phase compound droplet in a uniform electric field. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: For a compound droplet with parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: For a compound droplet with parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: For a compound droplet with parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time evolution of the coalescence of compound droplets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time evolution of the separation of compound droplets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Schematic of a compound droplet in a confined shear flow.. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) The compound droplet shapes for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Steady-state morphologies of the compound droplet at different confinement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Regime showing the droplet morphology for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Park, M. Hardy, S. Kang, K. Barton, K. Adair, D. Mukhopadhyay, C. Lee, M. Strano, A. Alleyne, J. Georgiadis, P. Ferreira andJ. Rogers,High-resolution electrohydrody- namic jet printing, Nat. Mater., 6 (2007), pp. 782–789

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    G. R. D. Prabhu, E. R. Williams, M. Wilm andP. L. Urban,Mass spectrometry using elec- trospray ionization, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers, 3 (2023), p. 23

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    G. Wang, W. Chen, J. Chen, C. Hu, Z. Zhao andZ. Yin,Mechanism of the pinch-off electro- hydrodynamic printing breaking through the characteristic frequency limit, J. Fluid Mech., 1015 (2025), p. A58

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    G. I. Taylor,Disintegration of water drops in an electric field, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A, 280 (1964), pp. 383–397

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    J. Q. Feng andT. C. Scott,A computational analysis of electrohydrodynamics of a leaky dielectric drop in an electric field, J. Fluid Mech., 311 (1996), pp. 289–326

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    D. A. Saville,Electrohydrodynamics: The Taylor–Melcher leaky dielectric model, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 29 (1997), pp. 27–64

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    X. Liu, G. Hao, B. Li andY. Chen,Experimental study on the electrohydrodynamic deformation 24X. LIU, X. QIAN, F. XIONG AND L. W ANG of droplets in a combined DC electric field and shear flow field, Fundam. Res., 3 (2023), pp. 274–287

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Mhatre andR

    S. Mhatre andR. Thaokar,Electrocoalescence in non-uniform electric fields: An experimental study, Chem. Eng. Process., 96 (2015), pp. 28–38

    work page 2015

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Wang, M. J. Miksis andP. M. Vlahovska,Electrohydrodynamic flow about a colloidal particle suspended in a non-polar fluid, J. Fluid Mech., 1000 (2024), p. A15

    2024

  2. [10]

    Z. M. Bei, T. B. Jones, A. Tucker-Schwartz andD. R. Harding,Electric field mediated droplet centering, Appl. Phys. Lett., 93 (2008), p. 184101

    2008

  3. [11]

    M. S. Abbasi, R. Song, H. Kim andJ. Lee,Multimodal breakup of a double emulsion droplet under an electric field, Soft Matter, 15 (2019), pp. 2292–2300

    2019

  4. [12]

    Huang, S

    Y. Huang, S. Yin, W. H. Chong, T. N. Wong andK. T. Ooi,Precise morphology control and fast merging of a complex multi-emulsion system: The effects of AC electric fields, Soft Matter, 15 (2019), pp. 5614–5625

    2019

  5. [13]

    Behjatian andA

    A. Behjatian andA. Esmaeeli,Electrohydrodynamics of a compound drop, Phys. Rev. E, 88 (2013), p. 033012

    2013

  6. [14]

    Tomar, D

    G. Tomar, D. Gerlach, G. Biswas, N. Alleborn, A. Sharma, S.W. Welch andA. Delgado, Two-phase electrohydrodynamic simulations using a volume-of-fluid approach, J. Comput. Phys., 227 (2007), pp. 1267–1285

    2007

  7. [15]

    S. K. Das, A. Dalal andG. Tomar,Electrohydrodynamic-induced interactions between drop- lets, J. Fluid Mech., 915 (2021), p. A88

    2021

  8. [16]

    Abbasi, R

    M. Abbasi, R. Song, J. Kim andJ. Lee,Electro-hydrodynamic behavior and interface instability of double emulsion droplets under high electric field, J. Electrost., 85 (2017), pp. 11–22

    2017

  9. [17]

    Paknemat, A

    H. Paknemat, A. R. Pishevar andP. Pournaderi,Numerical simulation of drop deformations and breakup modes caused by direct current electric fields, Phys. Fluids, 24 (2012), p. 102101

    2012

  10. [18]

    Naz andY Sui,A three-dimensional level set method for droplet sorting using a non-uniform electric field, Phys

    N. Naz andY Sui,A three-dimensional level set method for droplet sorting using a non-uniform electric field, Phys. Fluids, 35 (2023), p. 082001

    2023

  11. [19]

    W ¨orner,Numerical modeling of multiphase flows in microfluidics and micro process en- gineering: A review of methods and applications, Microfluid

    M. W ¨orner,Numerical modeling of multiphase flows in microfluidics and micro process en- gineering: A review of methods and applications, Microfluid. Nanofluid., 12 (2012), pp. 841–886

    2012

  12. [20]

    Santra, S

    S. Santra, S. Mandal andS. Chakraborty,Phase-field modeling of multicomponent and multiphase flows in microfluidic systems: A review, Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow, 31 (2021), pp. 3089–3131

    2021

  13. [21]

    Q. Yang, B. Q. Li andY. Ding,3D phase field modeling of electrohydrodynamic multiphase flows, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 57 (2013), pp. 1–9

    2013

  14. [22]

    Z. Feng, E. Klaseboer, H. Li andW.H.R. Chan,Effects of electrohydrodynamic charge trans- port on surface motion and deformation at a plasma–liquid interface, Appl. Math. Model., 145 (2025), p. 116115

    2025

  15. [23]

    P. Soni, V. A. Juvekar andV. M. Naik,Investigation on dynamics of double emulsion drop in a uniform electric field, J. Electrost., 71 (2013), pp. 471–477

    2013

  16. [24]

    Santra, A

    S. Santra, A. Jana andS. Chakraborty,Electric field modulated deformation dynamics of a compound drop in the presence of confined shear flow, Phys. Fluids, 32 (2020), p. 122006

    2020

  17. [25]

    Santra, S

    S. Santra, S. Das andS. Chakraborty,Electrically modulated dynamics of a compound droplet in a confined microfluidic environment, J. Fluid Mech., 882 (2020), p. A23

    2020

  18. [26]

    Y. Su, T. Yu, G. Wang, C. Zhang andZ. Liu,Numerical simulation of electrohydrodynamics of a compound drop based on the ternary phase field method, Sci. Prog., 103 (2020), p. 0036850419886473

    2020

  19. [27]

    X. Liu, Z. Chai, B. Shi andX. Yuan,Consistent and conservative lattice Boltzmann method for axisymmetric multiphase electrohydrodynamic flows, Physica D, 468 (2024), p. 134294

    2024

  20. [28]

    K. Luo, J. Wu, H. L. Yi andH. P. Tan,Numerical analysis of two-phase electrohydrodynamic flows in the presence of surface charge convection, Phys. Fluids, 32 (2020), p. 123308

    2020

  21. [29]

    Zhang, F

    H. Zhang, F. Wang andB. Nestler,Multi-component electro-hydro-thermodynamic model with phase-field method. I. Dielectric, J. Comput. Phys., 505 (2024), p. 112907

    2024

  22. [30]

    C. Eck, M. Fontelos, G. Gr ¨un andF. Klingbeil,On a phase-field model for electrowetting, Interfaces Free Bound., 11 (2009), pp. 259–290

    2009

  23. [31]

    X. Xu, U. Thiele andT. Qian,A variational approach to thin film hydrodynamics of binary mixtures, J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 27 (2015), p. 085005

    2015

  24. [32]

    X. Xu andT. Qian,Hydrodynamic boundary conditions derived from Onsager’s variational principle, Procedia IUTAM, 20 (2017), pp. 144–151

    2017

  25. [33]

    H. Chen, H. Liu andX. Xu,The Onsager principle and structure preserving numerical schemes, J. Comput. Phys., 523 (2025), p. 113679

    2025

  26. [34]

    Xiao andX

    S. Xiao andX. Xu,A moving mesh method for porous medium equation by the Onsager vari- ational principle, J. Comput. Phys., 536 (2025), p. 114061. ONSAGER-BASED LBM FOR THREE-PHASE DIELECTRIC FLOWS25

    2025

  27. [35]

    Lee andL

    T. Lee andL. Liu,Lattice Boltzmann simulations of micron-scale drop impact on dry surfaces, J. Comput. Phys., 229 (2010), pp. 8045–8063

    2010

  28. [36]

    Liang, B

    H. Liang, B. C. Shi andZ. Chai,Lattice Boltzmann modeling of three-phase incompressible flows, Phys. Rev. E, 93 (2016), p. 013308

    2016

  29. [37]

    H. Wang, X. Yuan, H. Liang, Z. Chai andB. Shi,A brief review of the phase-field-based lattice Boltzmann method for multiphase flows, Capillarity, 2 (2019), pp. 32–52

    2019

  30. [38]

    Simul., 20(4) (2022), pp

    X.Liu, Z.Chai, C.Zhan, B.Shi andW.Zhang,A diffuse-domain phase-field lattice Boltzmann method for two-phase flows in complex geometries, Multiscale Model. Simul., 20(4) (2022), pp. 1411–1436

    2022

  31. [39]

    Shardt, S

    O. Shardt, S. K. Mitra andJ. J. Derksen,Simulations of charged droplet collisions in shear flow, Chem. Eng. J., 302 (2016), pp. 314–322

    2016

  32. [40]

    Al-Sadik, S

    T. Al-Sadik, S. W. Welch andK. N. Premnath,Lattice Boltzmann simulations of axisym- metric nucleate boiling cycles for perfect and leaky dielectric fluids in an electric field, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer, 161 (2025), p. 108490

    2025

  33. [41]

    Y. Zhu, S. Zhang, Y. Hu, Q. He andD. Li,Phase-field-based regularized lattice Boltzmann method for axisymmetric two-phase electrohydrodynamic flow, Phys. Fluids, 37 (2025), p. 013301

    2025

  34. [42]

    Onsager,Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes

    L. Onsager,Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. I, Phys. Rev., 37 (1931), pp. 405–426

    1931

  35. [43]

    Xiong, L

    F. Xiong, L. Wang, J. Huang andK. Luo,A thermodynamically consistent phase-field lattice Boltzmann method for two-phase electrohydrodynamic flows, J. Sci. Comput., 103 (2025), p. 34

    2025

  36. [44]

    Doi,Onsager’s variational principle in soft matter, J

    M. Doi,Onsager’s variational principle in soft matter, J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 23 (2011), p. 284118

    2011

  37. [45]

    Boyer andC

    F. Boyer andC. Lapuerta,Study of a three component Cahn-Hilliard flow model, ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 40 (2006), pp. 653–687

    2006

  38. [46]

    Boyer, C

    F. Boyer, C. Lapuerta, S. Minjeaud, B. Piar andM. Quintard,Cahn–Hilliard/Navier– Stokes model for the simulation of three-phase flows, Transp. Porous Media, 82 (2010), pp. 463–483

    2010

  39. [47]

    L. D. Landau andE. M. Lifshitz,Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, 2nd ed., Pergamon, Oxford, 1975

    1975

  40. [48]

    Castellanos, ed.,Electrohydrodynamics, Vol

    A. Castellanos, ed.,Electrohydrodynamics, Vol. 380, Springer, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Kr ¨uger, H

    T. Kr ¨uger, H. Kusumaatmaja, A. Kuzmin, O. Shardt, G. Silva andE. M. Viggen,The lattice Boltzmann method, Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 4–15

    2017

  42. [50]

    Liang, B

    H. Liang, B. C. Shi, Z. L. Guo andZ. H. Chai,Phase-field-based multiple-relaxation-time lattice Boltzmann model for incompressible multiphase flows, Phys. Rev. E, 89 (2014), p. 053320

    2014

  43. [51]

    X. He andL. S. Luo,Theory of the lattice Boltzmann method: From the Boltzmann equation to the lattice Boltzmann equation, Phys. Rev. E, 56 (1997), pp. 6811–6817

    1997

  44. [52]

    Q. Lou, Z. Guo andB. Shi,Effects of force discretization on mass conservation in lattice Boltzmann equation for two-phase flows, EPL, 99 (2012), p. 64005

    2012

  45. [53]

    X. Liu, C. Zhan, Y. Chen, Z. Chai andB. Shi,A consistent and conservative diffuse-domain lattice Boltzmann method for multiphase flows in complex geometries, SIAM J. Sci. Com- put., 47 (2025), pp. B308–B332

    2025

  46. [54]

    Liang, J

    H. Liang, J. Xu, J. Chen, H. Wang, Z. Chai andB. Shi,Phase-field-based lattice Boltzmann modeling of large-density-ratio two-phase flows, Phys. Rev. E, 97 (2018), p. 033309

    2018

  47. [55]

    Z. Chai, B. Shi,andZ. Guo,A multiple-relaxation-time lattice Boltzmann model for general nonlinear anisotropic convection-diffusion equations, J. Sci. Comput., 69 (2016), pp. 355– 390

    2016

  48. [56]

    Yoshida, T

    H. Yoshida, T. Kinjo andH. Washizu,Coupled lattice Boltzmann method for simulating electrokinetic flows: A localized scheme for the Nernst–Plank model, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 19 (2014), pp. 3570–3590

    2014

  49. [57]

    X. Yang, B. Shi, Z. Chai andZ. Guo,A coupled lattice Boltzmann method to solve Nernst- Planck model for simulating electro-osmotic flows, J. Sci. Comput., 61 (2014), pp. 222–238

    2014

  50. [58]

    W. Qu andD. Li,A model for overlapped EDL fields, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 224 (2000), pp. 397–407

    2000

  51. [59]

    Kamali, M

    R. Kamali, M. N. Soloklou andH. Hadidi,Numerical simulation of electroosmotic flow in rough microchannels using the lattice Poisson-Nernst-Planck methods, Chem. Phys., 507 (2018), pp. 1–9

    2018

  52. [60]

    Kim,Phase-field models for multi-component fluid flows, Commun

    J. Kim,Phase-field models for multi-component fluid flows, Commun. Comput. Phys., 12 (2012), pp. 613–661

    2012

  53. [61]

    Behjatian andA

    A. Behjatian andA. Esmaeeli,Transient electrohydrodynamics of compound drops, Acta Mech., 226 (2015), pp. 2581–2606

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.