Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T04:50:18.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Oblique drop impact: can one infer the angle of impact?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2022

Vanessa R. Kern*
Affiliation:
Robert Frederick Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
Cathy Jin
Affiliation:
Robert Frederick Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
J. B. Bostwick
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
P. H. Steen
Affiliation:
Robert Frederick Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: vrk24@cornell.edu

Abstract

During solid surface impact, a falling drop's energy is transformed into oscillations of its liquid/gas interface. We consider drop deposition during oblique impact in the capillary-ballistic regime characterized by high Reynolds number and moderate Weber number. We treat this as an inverse problem showing that post-impact observations of the frequency spectrum and modal partition of energy allow one to determine a drop's pre-impact characteristics and wetting properties. Our analysis is useful for quantifying contact-line dissipation during inertial spreading and can be used as a diagnostic technique for determining substrate wetting properties.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Sessile drop mode shapes defined by mode number pair $[k,l]$ in two-dimensional polar, three-dimensional side, and three-dimensional top views. Here, $\alpha =90^\circ$.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Experimental set-up. (a) Water drops are generated from an auto-dispenser and impact a substrate inclined at angle $\beta$. High-speed imagery captures the impacting event. (b) Post-impact, the contact line spreads before coming to rest at pinning angle $\alpha _p$. Post-pinning, the drop's motion is restricted to liquid/gas interfacial oscillations according to sessile drop theory (Bostwick & Steen 2014). The sessile drop geometry is defined by the spherical cap's radius $R$, the deformation of the liquid/gas interface normal to the base state $c$, the drop's footprint radius $a$, and the polar and azimuthal angles $\theta,\phi$, respectively.

Figure 2

Table 1. Substrate identification with wetting properties defined by the equilibrium angle $\bar {\alpha }$ and contact-angle hysteresis $\Delta \alpha$.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Scaled frequency ratios determine $\alpha _p$. (a) Experimental and theoretical scaled frequencies $\hat {f}$ against pinning angle $\alpha _p$ for the $l=0,1$ mode shapes. Measured $\hat {f}$ are independent of $\beta$. (b) The frequency ratio $\hat {f}_{[4,0]}/\hat {f}_{[1,1]}$ is not monotonic with respect to $\alpha _p$, therefore a single frequency ratio $\hat {f}_{[k,l]}/\hat {f}_{[1,1]}$ is not enough information to determine $\alpha _p$. (c) By knowing two frequency ratios $\hat {f}_{[k,l]}/\hat {f}_{[1,1]}$, $\alpha _p$ can be determined uniquely ($\alpha _p$ increases in the clockwise direction).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Fast Fourier transforms of the drop's liquid/gas interface measured at different interface locations $\theta$ for a single experiment. Here, $R=1.76$ mm, $\alpha _p=97.7^\circ$ and $\beta =18^\circ$. Note the different $y$-axis scales and how the positions of the frequency peaks do not shift when the measurement angle $\theta$ is varied. Interface disturbances $c_{[k,l]}$ are maximized at (a) $\theta =0^\circ$ for the $[2,0]$ mode, (b) $\theta =26^\circ$ for the $[3,1]$ mode, and (c) $\theta =53^\circ$ for the $[1,1]$ mode.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Centre of mass trajectories explain liquid/gas interface disturbance decomposition. (a) Centre of mass (CoM) motion trajectories. Dotted lines represent extended trajectories (Wesson & Steen 2020). Solid blue lines represent CoM trajectories corresponding to 10 % disturbances of the interface, $c/R = 0.1$. The CoM of the $l=0$ modes moves exclusively in the $\hat {z}$ direction, while the $[1,1]$ mode is primarily in the $\hat {x}$ direction. The CoM motions of the $[3,1]$, $[5,1]$, $[1,1]$ modes have components in both the $\hat {x}$ and $\hat {z}$ directions. (b–d) Decomposition of liquid/gas interface disturbance $c_{[k,l]}$ against impact angle $\beta$ for two sets of experiments. Impact kinetic energy ranged from 15 % to 25 % of the pre-impact liquid/gas surface energy. As $\beta$ increases: (b) $c_{[1,1]}$ increases and (c) $c_{[2,0]}$ decreases, monotonically. Note the different $y$-axis scales. (d) The ratio $c_{[2,0]}/c_{[1,1]}$ decreases monotonically with $\beta$, allowing one to determine $\beta$ uniquely from the modal decomposition.