Capillary effects during droplet impact on a solid surface

Abstract

Impact of water droplets on a flat, solid surface was studied using both experiments and numerical simulation. Liquid–solid contact angle was varied in experiments by adding traces of a surfactant to water. Impacting droplets were photographed and liquid–solid contact diameters and contact angles were measured from photographs. A numerical solution of the Navier–Stokes equation using a modified SOLA-VOF method was used to model droplet deformation. Measured values of dynamic contact angles were used as a boundary condition for the numerical model. Impacting droplets spread on the surface until liquid surface tension and viscosity overcame inertial forces, after which they recoiled off the surface. Adding a surfactant did not affect droplet shape during the initial stages of impact, but did increase maximum spread diameter and reduce recoil height. Comparison of computer generated images of impacting droplets with photographs showed that the numerical model modeled droplet shape evolution correctly. Accurate predictions were obtained for droplet contact diameter during spreading and at equilibrium. The model overpredicted droplet contact diameters during recoil. Assuming that dynamic surface tension of surfactant solutions is constant, equaling that of pure water, gave predicted droplet shapes that best agreed with experimental observations. When the contact angle was assumed constant in the model, equal to the measured equilibrium value, predictions were less accurate. A simple analytical model was developed to predict maximum droplet diameter after impact. Model predictions agreed well with experimental measurements reported in the literature. Capillary effects were shown to be negligible during droplet impact when We≫Re1/2.

Removal of biofilms by impinging water droplets

“…Most studies on low-speed droplet impact focus on the spreading and splashing of droplets. 6,7 Surprisingly, the field between high-speed and low-speed droplet impact ͑i.e., velocities between 20 m and 150 m/s͒ did not receive much attention in the past.…”

Physicochemical Characteristics and Droplet Impact Dynamics of Superhydrophobic Carbon Nanotube Arrays

“…Weber number is considered as the most important parameter mainly because of its appearance in the energy balance of the droplet, which has been discussed in detail elsewhere, [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] and to avoid competition between two main components of kinetic energy, i.e. v i and d i .…”

Fluid dynamics topics in bloodstain pattern analysis: Comparative review and research opportunities

“…the ratio of the maximum contact diameter over the initial drop diameter. The spread factor has been estimated using first-order FD models [13,[112][113][114]. These models compare the various energy terms available before impact (kinetic, potential, surface) with energy terms available after impact, considering that some of the impact energy has been dissipated by e.g.…”

“…These numerical efforts were pioneered by Harlow and Shannon in the 1960s [129]. Subsequent work added the effect of viscosity [130], surface tension [131], wetting [113] and heat transfer during impact [132]. Later, researchers studied numerically the evaporation of drops on solid surfaces, see section 6.2.…”