Next Article in Journal
Possibility to Save Water and Energy by Application of Fresh Vegetables to Produce Supplemented Potato-Based Snack Pellets
Next Article in Special Issue
CFD Modeling of Gas–Solid Cyclone Separators at Ambient and Elevated Temperatures
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of the Most Suitable Conditions for Dehydration of Tuckeroo (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) Fruits
Previous Article in Special Issue
Experimental and Numerical Analysis of a Sustainable Farming Compartment with Evaporative Cooling System
Open AccessCorrection

Correction: Vachaparambil, K.J. Comparison of Surface Tension Models for the Volume of Fluid Method. Processes 2019, 7, 542

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2020, 8(2), 152; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8020152
Received: 21 January 2020 / Accepted: 22 January 2020 / Published: 25 January 2020
Corrections:
In Equations (2) and (3), τ μ and τ ρ should be defined as μ a v g Δ x / σ and ρ a v g ( Δ x ) 3 / σ , respectively.
In Equation (9),   n f is the unit normal vector to the interface and S f is the face surface area.
In Table 8 and Table 10, the kinematic viscosity of gas or phase 2 should be equal to 1.48 × 10 5 m2/s, as provided in the simulation case files available in the Supplementary Material.
The results reported in [1] are not affected by these typographical errors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vachaparambil, K.J.; Einarsrud, K.E. Comparison of Surface Tension Models for the Volume of Fluid Method. Processes 2019, 7, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Back to TopTop