论失去平衡的锐面和漫射面的兼容性

Václav Klika, Hans Christian Öttinger
{"title":"论失去平衡的锐面和漫射面的兼容性","authors":"Václav Klika, Hans Christian Öttinger","doi":"10.1137/22m1529294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multiscale Modeling &amp;Simulation, Volume 22, Issue 1, Page 369-405, March 2024. <br/> Abstract. There are two main approaches to modelling interfaces within nonequilibrium thermodynamics, the so-called sharp and diffuse interface models. Both of them are based on the local equilibrium assumption (LEA) in the bulk, but the latter additionally assumes the validity of this concept also within the interface itself (as the thermodynamic description is available and smoothly varying even within the interface), that is, on a finer length scale, which we call super-LEA. Instead of testing the two approaches against molecular dynamic simulations, we explore the mutual compatibility of these two descriptions of an interface in a nonequilibrium situation. Based on the level of detail in the two frameworks, one naturally cannot reconstruct a diffuse interface model from a sharp interface counterpart. One can test, however, whether diffuse interface models are indeed a more detailed description of the interface. Namely, assuming that both approaches are valid, we use the diffuse interface model (van der Waals entropy together with the Cahn–Hilliard type energy with the mass density as the order parameter) and its sharp interface counterpart (with the additional set of interfacial state variables subjected to known thermodynamic constraints) to test their mutual compatibility and indirectly verify the correctness of the additional super-LEA of the diffuse models. That is, thanks to super-LEA, we define five interfacial temperatures that should be equal. However, when we analyze diffuse interface results like experimental or simulation data in terms of sharp interfaces, we show that, contrary to molecular simulation data, they do not yield equal interfacial temperatures. We argue that the culprit is the super-LEA which is most prominently expressed in the accessibility of the entropy density profile. Nevertheless, it is observed that there is an inconsistency between diffuse and sharp interface descriptions; they cannot both be correct. The sharp interface framework has been recently tested against molecular dynamics and the obtained results suggest that super-LEA is the potential weakness of the diffuse framework. In this sense, sharp interfaces are found to be superior to diffuse interfaces in their general ability to model physical systems with interfaces.","PeriodicalId":501053,"journal":{"name":"Multiscale Modeling and Simulation","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Compatibility of Sharp and Diffuse Interfaces Out of Equilibrium\",\"authors\":\"Václav Klika, Hans Christian Öttinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1137/22m1529294\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Multiscale Modeling &amp;Simulation, Volume 22, Issue 1, Page 369-405, March 2024. <br/> Abstract. There are two main approaches to modelling interfaces within nonequilibrium thermodynamics, the so-called sharp and diffuse interface models. Both of them are based on the local equilibrium assumption (LEA) in the bulk, but the latter additionally assumes the validity of this concept also within the interface itself (as the thermodynamic description is available and smoothly varying even within the interface), that is, on a finer length scale, which we call super-LEA. Instead of testing the two approaches against molecular dynamic simulations, we explore the mutual compatibility of these two descriptions of an interface in a nonequilibrium situation. Based on the level of detail in the two frameworks, one naturally cannot reconstruct a diffuse interface model from a sharp interface counterpart. One can test, however, whether diffuse interface models are indeed a more detailed description of the interface. Namely, assuming that both approaches are valid, we use the diffuse interface model (van der Waals entropy together with the Cahn–Hilliard type energy with the mass density as the order parameter) and its sharp interface counterpart (with the additional set of interfacial state variables subjected to known thermodynamic constraints) to test their mutual compatibility and indirectly verify the correctness of the additional super-LEA of the diffuse models. That is, thanks to super-LEA, we define five interfacial temperatures that should be equal. However, when we analyze diffuse interface results like experimental or simulation data in terms of sharp interfaces, we show that, contrary to molecular simulation data, they do not yield equal interfacial temperatures. We argue that the culprit is the super-LEA which is most prominently expressed in the accessibility of the entropy density profile. Nevertheless, it is observed that there is an inconsistency between diffuse and sharp interface descriptions; they cannot both be correct. The sharp interface framework has been recently tested against molecular dynamics and the obtained results suggest that super-LEA is the potential weakness of the diffuse framework. In this sense, sharp interfaces are found to be superior to diffuse interfaces in their general ability to model physical systems with interfaces.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501053,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multiscale Modeling and Simulation\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multiscale Modeling and Simulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1137/22m1529294\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multiscale Modeling and Simulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1137/22m1529294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多尺度建模与仿真》,第 22 卷第 1 期,第 369-405 页,2024 年 3 月。 摘要非平衡热力学中有两种主要的界面建模方法,即所谓的尖锐界面模型和扩散界面模型。这两种方法都基于块体的局部平衡假定(LEA),但后者还假定这一概念在界面本身也是有效的(因为热力学描述即使在界面内也是可用和平滑变化的),即在更细的长度尺度上,我们称之为超 LEA。我们不是用分子动力学模拟来测试这两种方法,而是在非平衡状态下探索这两种界面描述的相互兼容性。基于这两种框架的详细程度,我们自然无法从尖锐界面对应物重建扩散界面模型。不过,我们可以检验扩散界面模型是否确实是对界面更详细的描述。也就是说,假设两种方法都有效,我们使用扩散界面模型(范德华熵和卡恩-希利亚德型能量,以质量密度作为阶次参数)及其尖锐界面对应模型(附加一组受已知热力学约束的界面状态变量)来检验它们之间的相互兼容性,并间接验证扩散模型附加超LEA 的正确性。也就是说,由于超LEA,我们定义了五个应该相等的界面温度。然而,当我们分析像尖锐界面的实验或模拟数据一样的扩散界面结果时,我们发现,与分子模拟数据相反,它们并没有产生相等的界面温度。我们认为,罪魁祸首是超LEA,它在熵密度曲线的可达性中表现得最为突出。尽管如此,我们观察到扩散界面描述和尖锐界面描述之间存在不一致;它们不可能都是正确的。尖锐界面框架最近通过分子动力学进行了测试,结果表明超LEA 是扩散框架的潜在弱点。从这个意义上说,尖锐界面在模拟具有界面的物理系统的一般能力方面优于扩散界面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the Compatibility of Sharp and Diffuse Interfaces Out of Equilibrium
Multiscale Modeling &Simulation, Volume 22, Issue 1, Page 369-405, March 2024.
Abstract. There are two main approaches to modelling interfaces within nonequilibrium thermodynamics, the so-called sharp and diffuse interface models. Both of them are based on the local equilibrium assumption (LEA) in the bulk, but the latter additionally assumes the validity of this concept also within the interface itself (as the thermodynamic description is available and smoothly varying even within the interface), that is, on a finer length scale, which we call super-LEA. Instead of testing the two approaches against molecular dynamic simulations, we explore the mutual compatibility of these two descriptions of an interface in a nonequilibrium situation. Based on the level of detail in the two frameworks, one naturally cannot reconstruct a diffuse interface model from a sharp interface counterpart. One can test, however, whether diffuse interface models are indeed a more detailed description of the interface. Namely, assuming that both approaches are valid, we use the diffuse interface model (van der Waals entropy together with the Cahn–Hilliard type energy with the mass density as the order parameter) and its sharp interface counterpart (with the additional set of interfacial state variables subjected to known thermodynamic constraints) to test their mutual compatibility and indirectly verify the correctness of the additional super-LEA of the diffuse models. That is, thanks to super-LEA, we define five interfacial temperatures that should be equal. However, when we analyze diffuse interface results like experimental or simulation data in terms of sharp interfaces, we show that, contrary to molecular simulation data, they do not yield equal interfacial temperatures. We argue that the culprit is the super-LEA which is most prominently expressed in the accessibility of the entropy density profile. Nevertheless, it is observed that there is an inconsistency between diffuse and sharp interface descriptions; they cannot both be correct. The sharp interface framework has been recently tested against molecular dynamics and the obtained results suggest that super-LEA is the potential weakness of the diffuse framework. In this sense, sharp interfaces are found to be superior to diffuse interfaces in their general ability to model physical systems with interfaces.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Kinetic Description of Swarming Dynamics with Topological Interaction and Transient Leaders High-Frequency Homogenization for Periodic Dispersive Media Multiscale Approach for Variational Problem Joint Diffeomorphic Image Registration and Intensity Correction: Theory and Application Homogenization of a Porous Intercalation Electrode with Phase Separation Quantum Algorithms for Multiscale Partial Differential Equations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1