Comparison of Contact Angle Models in Two‐Phase Flow Simulations Using a Conservative Phase Field Equation

Abstract

ABSTRACTIn phase field methods based on a second‐order Allen‐Cahn (AC) equation, contact angles are prescribed mostly via a geometric formulation. However, it is of great interest to utilize the surface‐energy formulation, which is often employed in the Cahn‐Hilliard (CH) phase field method, in the AC phase field method. This article thus put forward a surface‐energy formulation of contact angles. The model was compared with the geometric one in a number of impact problems, including both normal and oblique impacts. The governing equations were discretized using a finite difference method on a half‐staggered grid. The Navier–Stokes equation was tackled using an explicit projection method. The major findings are as follows. First, the geometric model can maintain a fixed contact angle throughout contact line motion, while the surface‐energy one predicts a changeable contact angle, with a fluctuation of about 5°. In the oblique drop impact, contact angle hysteresis was captured even if a static contact angle was applied in the surface‐energy formulation.