1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Drop dynamics after impact on a solid wall: Theory and simulations
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.3432498
/content/aip/journal/pof2/22/6/10.1063/1.3432498
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/22/6/10.1063/1.3432498
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Snapshots of a drop impacting on a solid surface obtained numerically using the markers method for and . Times of the different snapshot correspond to , 0.22, 0.43, 1.3, 2.5, 5.7, 15.8, 21.2, and 60 from left to right and top to bottom, respectively.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Time evolution of (a) the radius of the contact area between the drop and the substrate and of (b) the height of the interface on the symmetry axis. The radius and the height are rescaled by the drop radius and time is shown in units of .

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The pressure field corresponding to the same conditions in Fig. 1 for (a) , (b) 0.12, (c) 0.2, and (d) 0.29. The shade scale goes from light to dark for increasing values of the pressure.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Pressure at the center of impact as function of for different Reynolds and Weber numbers ranging from 400 to 8000 and from 160 to 80 000, respectively . The behavior predicted by the small time impact theory is the dashed line. For , notice that the pressure drops dramatically.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Top and bottom left: series of drop profiles for different times. Top left for and for varying from 0.8 to 2.7. Bottom left: and for varying from 0.9 to 2.3. Right figures show the same profiles rescaled by the maximum height for and by its square root for , according to Eq. (4). The axis coordinates in the figures correspond to the numerical mesh. The dashed line shows a fit of the converged rescaled profiles , with in dimensionless units.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

The similarity profile. The dashed line is .

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Numerical profiles of the derivative of vertical velocity on the symmetry axis for , (top figures) and , (bottom figure) at different dimensionless times ranging from 0.2 to 3 in the first case and from 2 to 8 in the second case. The top and bottom left figures show the numerical profiles, while the top and bottom right figures show the same profile rescaled according to formula (14). The thick line in the right figures indicate the approximated theoretical boundary layer .

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

A sketch of a drop after impact at high speed, so that both Re and We are large. The film thickness is , the radius of the film is , the volume of the rim is , and the total drop radius is .

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

The total drop radius as function of time of an impacting drop with . The line is the numerical simulation and the dashed line shows the model output. The free parameters [Eq. (26)] have been fitted to obtain the best possible fit of the experiment.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

(a) The rim radius (dashed line) and the spreading drop radius (solid line) as function of dimensionless time . (b) The mass (normalized by the total mass ) in the rim (solid line) and the one in the film (dotted line) are drawn as functions of time. Both figures show that the rim grows only during the retraction phase of the drop.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

The radius as function of time , for a variety of impact parameters (Re,We) (a) (800,400), (b) (800,1600), (c) (800,4000), (d) (800,16000), (e) (400,800), and (f) (8000,800). The continuous line shows the numerical simulation and the dashed lines the results of the simplified model.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

The minimum radius of the film as a function of the Reynolds number obtained using the model (circles) for Weber varying between 100 and 4000 and compared to numerical simulations of the full equations (square). The predicted law is the dashed line, while the law is the dotted line for comparison.

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

A test of the two scaling relations (31) (left) and (32) (right), using as calculated from the model. The rescaled maximum radius ) is plotted (a) as a function of ; the expected behavior for small , , is indicated in dotted line; (b) as function of , again showing the expected behavior for small , (dotted line).

Image of FIG. 14.
FIG. 14.

Retraction velocity measured in the model as the maximum velocity reached during the retraction regime (a) is shown as a function of Weber number for different Reynolds numbers. (b) According to the theory balancing inertia and capillarity [Eq. (33)], all the curves collapse when the retraction rate is considered. The line shows the fit to be compared to the Taylor–Culick retraction rate (33).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/pof2/22/6/10.1063/1.3432498
2010-06-11
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Drop dynamics after impact on a solid wall: Theory and simulations
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/22/6/10.1063/1.3432498
10.1063/1.3432498
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM