International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 141 (2019) 1181–1186

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

Technical Note

Droplet impact on superheated surfaces with different wettabilities

Qiang Ma, Xiaomin Wu ⇑, Tong Li
Key Laboratory for Thermal Science and Power Engineering of the Ministry of Education, Department of Energy and Power Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this work, single droplet impact on superheated surface with 5 to 220 Weber numbers, 110 °C to
Received 14 December 2018 360 °C surface temperatures and 10°, 78° and 122° surface contact angles of deionized water was exper-
Received in revised form 24 June 2019 imentally investigated. The surface wettability was changed by spray-coating thin films on the aluminum
Accepted 4 July 2019
plates and the surface roughness maintained very small. Six typical droplet impact and boiling modes
were observed and classified. The Ts-We regime map was used to illustrate the droplet impact and boiling
modes. The results show that the surface temperature required for the transition from droplet boiling
Keywords:
with atomization to droplet boiling without atomization increases with the increase of Weber number
Droplet impact
Boiling
and surface wettability. The curve separating the droplet rebound with atomization mode and droplet
Surface wettability breakup with atomization mode is not monotone on the hydrophilic surface and bare aluminum surface.
Leidenfrost phenomenon On the hydrophilic surface, the recoil of the spread film is very weak at the deposition mode and droplet
rebound requires higher surface temperature. Besides, the droplet breakup will not occur on the hydro-
philic surface with lower surface temperature (Ts  150 °C). On the hydrophobic surface, the deposition
mode is absent and atomization cannot be observed for any surface temperatures when the Weber num-
ber is small (We = 5 or 20).
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Droplets impact on heated surface is a common phenomenon in
spray cooling which can remove fairly high heat flux and has a
great application potential in electronic devices cooling [1,2]. The
phenomenon of droplet impact on heated surface is complicated
and influenced by numerous parameters including droplet param-
eters, surrounding conditions and solid surface characteristics [3].
Solid surface characteristics including surface roughness [4,5],
micro/nano-structures [6–11], and surface wettability [6,12–19]
affect the droplet impact behavior and the droplet boiling heat
transfer. Zhang et al. [4] found that the spray cooling heat transfer
rate increased with the increase of surface roughness due to the
nanoscale and microscale structures increasing the heating surface
area and piercing the liquid film, with the driving force caused by
the structures accelerating spreading of the liquid film and enhanc-
ing the heat transfer. Silicon or metal substrates were used to fab-
ricate micro/nano-structured surfaces and droplet impact and
boiling regime map [6–8], droplet lifetime [9,10], and heat transfer
performance [11] have been experimentally investigated. Kwon
et al. [7] found that Leidenfrost point (LFP) was raised by surface
textures which promoted droplet wetting via capillary wicking.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wuxiaomin@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (X.M. Wu).
Besides, LFP was higher on surfaces with sparser microscale posts
spacing due to its smaller vapor flow resistance.
In recent years, the influence of surface wettability has drawn
much attention. On the superhydrophobic surface, the pseudo-
Leidenfrost state occurs with low superheat since the water droplet
can be suspended at the peaks of the roughness and vapor escapes
from underneath the droplet. Due to the existence of the pseudo-
Leidenfrost state, it is difficult to determine the LFP of the superhy-
drophobic surface [12]. The influence of surface wettability on dro-
plet lifetime [12–16] and droplet impact and boiling behaviors
[6,15–19] has been investigated. Surfaces with different wettabili-
ties were fabricated using multiple methods, such as etching [12],
depositing [13], photolithography [14,17] and chemical vapor
deposition [19]. However, most of them changed the surface micro-
scale structures simultaneously. Microscale structures influence
the conclusion of the effect of surface wettability on the droplet
impact and boiling a lot. Kim et al. [12] obtained that the superhy-
drophilic surface produced the highest temperature condition for
the LFP at approximately 330 °C compared with hydrophilic sur-
face, hydrophobic surface and superhydrophobic surface. However,
Clavijo et al. [17] found the LFP was lower on the superhydrophilic
surface than that on the hydrophilic surface due to the increased
solid-liquid contact area by the textures of the superhydrophilic
surface. In the experiments conducted by Wang et al. [19], the sur-
face contact angle was also not independent of surface roughness.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.07.027
0017-9310/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1182 Q. Ma et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 141 (2019) 1181–1186

Wang et al. [19] found that in the transition boiling, small contact
angle and large surface roughness enhanced the heat transfer.
Zhang et al. [6] investigated the droplet impact and boiling on the
substrates with 14 lm-high micropillars and different wettabili-
ties. Due to the existence of microscale structures, vapor can flow
through the interspace between the micropillars under the droplet
and the capillary forces from the micro structures act on the
droplet-vapor interface, which leads to the complexity of
droplet impact and boiling. Thus, the effect of surface wettability
on droplet impact and boiling was difficult to analyze in Zhang’s
work [6].
The goal of this work is to investigate the effect of surface wet-
tability on the droplet impact on superheated surfaces. Three kinds
of surfaces were fabricated, namely, hydrophilic surface, bare alu-
minum surface and hydrophobic surface. Typical droplet impact
and boiling modes were observed and classified. For each surface,

Fig. 1. Typical water droplet impact and boiling modes on the superheated bare aluminum surface. (a) deposition at We = 5, Ts = 150 °C; (b) breakup and deposition at
We = 200, Ts = 150 °C; (c) rebounding with atomization at We = 60, Ts = 210 °C;(d) breakup with atomization at We = 140, Ts = 210 °C; (e) rebound without atomization at
We = 60, Ts = 330 °C; (f) breakup without atomization at We = 140, Ts = 330 °C.
 Q. Ma et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 141 (2019) 1181–1186
the droplet impact and boiling modes were determined in a large
range of Weber numbers and surface temperatures (5  We  220,
110 °C  Ts  360 °C). The influence of surface wettability on dro-
plet impact and boiling was analyzed.
2. Experimental system and procedures
The test plate was placed on a ceramic heater which was the
heat source. The heating power of the ceramic heater was con-
trolled by a DC power supply (Agilent N5766A, 0.02 V regulation
accuracy). The thickness of the test plate was 1 mm. The tempera-
ture below the test plate was measured using 3 K-type thermocou-
ples and used as the test surface temperature due to the small
temperature difference between the bottom surface and the top
surface (test surface) of the test plate. The droplet impact and boil-
ing process was recorded using a high speed camera (Optronis
CP80). The frame rate was set as 2500 fps with the exposure time
of 100 ls and thus the time accuracy in this work was 0.4 ms.
Three kinds of surfaces, hydrophilic surface, bare aluminum
surface and hydrophobic surface were used in this work. Two kinds
of thin films were spray-coated on the aluminum plates to fabri-
cate the hydrophilic surface and the hydrophobic surface. The sur-
face roughness maintained very small and the average value of the
roughness of each test surface was less than 30 nm. The contact
angles were 10°, 78° and 122° of deionized water on hydrophilic
surface, bare aluminum surface and hydrophobic surface,
respectively.
Deionized water was used in our experiments and the proper-
ties at room temperature were density q = 998 kg
m 1, viscosity
t = 1.01  10-6 m2
s 1 and surface tension c = 0.072 N
m 1. The
water droplet was released from a micro-syringe with volume
V = 12.5 lL (droplet diameter D = 2.88 mm) above the test
surface. The droplet impact velocity, v, and Weber number
(We, We = qDv2/c) were controlled by adjusting the release height
of the water droplet.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Droplet impact on superheated surfaces
Fig. 1 presents six different droplet impact and boiling modes.
In this work, the moment when the impacting droplet contacts
the heated surface was set as t = 0 ms. The deposition mode and
breakup and deposition mode are shown in Fig. 1 (a) and (b), which
appear with lower surface temperature. When the Weber number
is larger, the droplet breakup occurs during the water film recoil
process as Fig. 1 (b) shows. Tiny droplets generated by the bubbles
burst can be observed in the deposition mode as shown in Fig. 1
(b). The tiny droplets ejection with the experimental conditions
of Fig. 1 (a) occurs at t = 48 ms, which is later than that of Fig. 1
(b). This is because the solid-liquid contact area is smaller and
the droplet absorbs less heat during the spread and recoil process
with smaller Weber number.
2 mm
atomization
Ts=150 oC Ts=210 oC
Fig. 2. Atomization on bare aluminum surface with different surface temperatures at We = 60, t = 4 ms.
1183
The rebound with atomization mode and breakup with
atomization mode appear when we raise the surface temperature
as Fig. 1 (c) and (d) shows. Tiny droplets eject upward from the
central region of the water film during the droplet spread and
recoil process as described by Liang et al. [20]. Note that the tiny
droplets ejection appears much earlier than in the deposition
mode. More atomization droplets are produced with larger Weber
number as shown in Fig. 1 (c) and (d). This is because the spread
film is thinner with larger Weber number, in which bubbles burst
and atomization occur easily as discussed by Clavijo et al. [17] and
Tran et al. [21].
At the rebound with atomization mode or breakup with
atomization mode, the intensity of atomization increases firstly
and then decreases with the increase of surface temperature as
shown in Fig. 2. As illustrated by Clavijo et al. [22], the rise and fall
behavior of atomization of droplet boiling is tantamount to the
classical relationship between heat flux and surface temperature
for pool boiling. The atomization intensity increases with the
increase of surface temperature since the bubbles grow faster
and bubbles burst is more violent with higher surface temperature.
However, when keep raising the surface temperature, part of the
water film is elevated by the vapor and detaches the heated surface
[23]. Thus, the heat transfer and the atomization intensity
decrease. When the impacting droplet is completely supported
by the vapor, the film boiling occurs. Rein [24] pointed out that
atomization can be observed in the transition boiling regime while
cannot be observed in the film boiling regime. Therefore, when the
surface temperature is at or above the LFP, rebound without
atomization mode and breakup without atomization mode are
observed as shown in Fig. 1 (e) and (f). In Fig. 1 (e), a satellite dro-
plet is ejected from the top, which can be considered as Plateau-
Rayleigh instability.
3.2. Droplet impact and boiling regime map
The droplet impact and boiling behaviors with varying Weber
numbers and surface temperatures can be illustrated using the
Ts-We regime map. Clavijo et al. [17] presented the Ts-We regime
map for the surfaces with different wettabilities. But the map only
illustrated whether the atomization occurred. Zhang et al. [6] and
Wang et al. [19] presented more droplet boiling modes on the
Ts-We regime map. However, the maps cannot indicate the influ-
ence of surface wettability. Fig. 3 shows six typical droplet impact
and boiling modes on the surfaces with different wettabilities
using the Ts-We regime map. Curve Ⅰ in Fig. 3 separates droplet
boiling with atomization mode (rebound with atomization mode
or breakup with atomization mode) and droplet boiling without
atomization mode (rebound without atomization mode or breakup
without atomization mode). The temperature of Curve Ⅰ increases
with the increase of Weber number. As mentioned before, when
the surface temperature is at or above the LFP, the impacting dro-
plet is completely supported by the vapor and the boiling without
atomization mode is observed. Since the impacting droplet kinetic
atomization atomization
Ts=240 oC Ts=270 oC Ts=300 oC
1184 Q. Ma et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 141 (2019) 1181–1186

energy is larger with larger Weber number, higher surface temper- temperatures and Curve Ⅱ on the hydrophobic surface is different
ature is required to produce enough vapor to support the droplet. from those on the hydrophilic surface and bare aluminum surface.
Curve Ⅱ in Fig. 3 separates droplet rebound with atomization Clavijo et al. [17] also found that no atomization occurs on the
mode and droplet breakup with atomization mode. However, hydrophobic surface with small Weber number (We10) for any
Curve Ⅱ is not monotone on the hydrophilic surface and bare alu- surface temperatures. This is because that the spread film on the
minum surface. Taking the result of droplet impact and boiling hydrophobic surface with small Weber number is so thick that
modes at We = 100 on the bare aluminum surface as an example,
the rebound mode, breakup mode and rebound mode appear in
order with the increase of surface temperature. As mentioned
before, the intensity of atomization increases firstly and then
decreases with the increase of surface temperature and droplet
atomization is the consequence of bubbles burst. Thus, bubbles
burst is violent and the droplet breakup appears at moderate sur-
face temperatures (Ts = 200–290 °C at We = 100 on the bare alu-
minum surface), since the droplet breakup is induced by bubbles
burst at small Weber numbers [6,19].
The regime map of droplet impact and boiling modes is influ-
enced by the surface wettability as shown in Fig. 3. First, the recoil
of the spread film is very weak at deposition mode and droplet
rebound requires higher surface temperature on the hydrophilic
surface as shown in Fig. 3 (a). This is because the work of adhesion
is larger on the surface with better wettability. We use the value
Dmin/Dmax to evaluate the recoil of spread film. Dmin and Dmax are
the minimum diameter and the maximum diameter of the solid–
liquid contact area during the recoil process, respectively. The
average value of Dmin/Dmax at We = 80, Ts = 110 °C, 120 °C and
130 °C is 0.87 on the hydrophilic surface, which is 112% larger than
that on the bare aluminum surface. The vapor bubbles under the
droplet prevent the solid–liquid contact, which reduces the work
of adhesion. Therefore, at higher surface temperature the work of
adhesion is smaller, that is, the spread film has enough energy to
recoil and rebound.
Second, the deposition mode cannot be observed on the
hydrophobic surface with the experimental conditions in this work
(5  We  220, 110 °C  Ts  360 °C). Since the work of adhesion
on the hydrophobic surface is small, the spread film on the
hydrophobic surface can easily recoil and rebound. When the sur-
face temperature is lower (Ts  150 °C), less heat can be absorbed
by the droplet and atomization cannot occurs. Thus, the rebound
without atomization mode and breakup without atomization
mode are observed on the hydrophobic surface with lower surface
temperatures (Ts  150 °C).
Third, the droplet breakup cannot be observed on the hydrophi-
lic surface with lower surface temperatures (Ts  150 °C). At lower
surface temperature, the bubbles burst will not occur during the
droplet spread and recoil process. Thus, the droplet breakup cannot
be induced by bubbles burst. Besides, due to the small contact
angle on the hydrophilic surface, the disintegrate of the spread film
is hard to occur. The digitations appear at the rim of the spread film
at larger Weber numbers as shown in Fig. 4 (a) and (b). As for
hydrophobic surface, due to the large contact angle, the curvature
of the digitation lower part may larger than the curvature of the
digitation upper part, i.e., d1 > d2 as the schematic diagram Fig. 4
(d) shows. As a result, the surface tension will drive the digitations
to form isolated droplets and the disintegrate of the spread film
occurs according to the Young-Laplace equation. However, as
shown in Fig. 4 (c), the digitations of spread film on the hydrophilic
surface cannot form isolated droplets driven by the surface tension.
Thus, good wettability can prevent the disintegrate of the spread
film when the wall temperature is lower. The result obtained by
Lin et al. [25] is consistent with this conclusion, in which the dro-
plet impact phenomenon on surfaces with different wettabilities at
We  100 was observed and the droplet breakup was only Fig. 3. Ts-We regime maps of (a) hydrophilic surface, (b) bare aluminum surface and
(c) hydrophobic surface. Six different impact and boiling modes are presented.
observed on the surface with the largest contact angle. Curve Ⅰ separates droplet boiling with atomization mode and droplet boiling
Fourth, atomization cannot be observed on the hydrophobic without atomization mode. Curve Ⅱ separates droplet rebound with atomization
surface with small Weber numbers (We = 5 or 20) for any surface mode and droplet breakup with atomization mode.
 Q. Ma et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 141 (2019) 1181–1186
2 mm
digitations
4 ms 8 ms
(a) Spread film recoil and boiling on the hydrophilic surface
2 mm
digitations
4 ms 8 ms
(b) Spread film recoil and boiling on the hydrophobic surface
(c) Spread film shape on the hydrophilic surface
Fig. 4. Droplet impact and boiling modes on (a) hydrophilic surface at We = 220, Ts = 110 °C and (b) hydrophobic surface at We = 200, Ts = 150 °C and schematic diagrams of
spread film shape on (c) hydrophilic surface and (d) hydrophobic surface.
bubbles burst cannot occur. At the increased Weber numbers
(We  40), the atomization can be observed on the hydrophobic
surface. However, the atomization is very weak and the bubbles
burst cannot break the spread film. Thus, the droplet breakup
requires larger Weber number (We  120) and Curve Ⅱ is different
on the hydrophobic surface.
Fifth, the temperature of Curve Ⅰ on the hydrophobic surface is
lower than that on the hydrophilic surface and bare aluminum
surface. On the surface with large contact angle, a large volume
is required for a bubble to depart since the large bubble base
area leads to large downward surface tension [26]. Besides, as
illustrated by Clavijo et al. [17], vapor bubbles on the hydrophobic
surface tend to grow in a flat manner and spread out over the solid
surface. Therefore, the vapor blanket forms more easily and lower
surface temperature is required for the transition to film boiling on
the hydrophobic surface.
4. Conclusions
In this work, single droplet impact and boiling modes on super-
heated surfaces with different wettabilities were experimentally
investigated. Six typical droplet impact and boiling modes were
observed and classified, including deposition, breakup and deposi-
tion, rebound with atomization, breakup with atomization,
rebound without atomization and breakup without atomization.
The Ts-We regime map was used to illustrate the droplet impact
and boiling modes. On the regime map, the temperature of Curve Ⅰ
which was used to separate the droplet boiling with atomization
mode and droplet boiling without atomization mode increases
with the increase of Weber number. Curve Ⅱ was used to separate
the droplet rebound with atomization mode and the droplet
breakup with atomization mode. Since the intensity of atomization
increases firstly and then decreases with the increase of surface
temperature, Curve Ⅱ is not monotone on the hydrophilic surface
and bare aluminum surface.
The Ts-We regime map is influenced by the surface wettability.
On the hydrophilic surface, the droplet rebound requires higher
1185
18 ms 30 ms 60 ms
18 ms 30 ms 60 ms
d1
(d) Spread film shape on the hydrophobic surface
surface temperature and droplet breakup cannot be observed with
lower surface temperature (Ts  150 °C). On the hydrophobic sur-
face, the deposition mode is absent within the experimental condi-
tions in this work. When the Weber number is small (We = 5 or 20),
atomization cannot be observed on the hydrophobic surface for
any surface temperatures. Besides, the temperature of Curve Ⅰ is
lower on the hydrophobic surface. Curve Ⅱ on the regime map of
the hydrophobic surface is different from those on the hydrophilic
surface and bare aluminum surface.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We declare no any interest conflict.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dations of China (No. 51476084) and the National Natural Science
Foundation of China Science Fund for Creative Research Groups
(No. 51321002).
References
[1] J. Kim, Spray cooling heat transfer: The state of the art, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 28
(2007) 753–767.
[2] M. Visaria, I. Mudawar, Application of two-phase spray cooling for thermal
management of electronic devices, IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol. 32
(2009) 784–793.
[3] G. Liang, I. Mudawar, Review of drop impact on heated walls, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 106 (2017) 103–126.
[4] Z. Zhang, J. Li, P.X. Jiang, Experimental investigation of spray cooling on flat and
enhanced surfaces, Appl. Therm. Eng. 51 (2013) 102–111.
[5] S.Y. Misyura, The effect of Weber number, droplet sizes and wall roughness on
crisis of droplet boiling, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 84 (2017) 190–198.
[6] W. Zhang, T. Yu, J. Fan, et al., Droplet impact behavior on heated micro-
patterned surfaces, J. Appl. Phys. 119 (2016) 114901.
[7] H. Kwon, J.C. Bird, K.K. Varanasi, Increasing Leidenfrost point using micro-nano
hierarchical surface structures, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103 (2013) 201601.
[8] T. Tran, H.J.J. Staat, A.S. Arce, Droplet impact on superheated micro-structured
surfaces, Soft Matter 9 (2013) 3272.
1186 Q. Ma et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 141 (2019) 1181–1186
[9] D.A. del Cerro, Á.G. Marín, G.R.B.E. Römer, et al., Leidenfrost point reduction on
micropatterned metallic surfaces, Langmuir 28 (2012) 15106–15110.
[10] C. Kruse, T. Anderson, C. Wilson, et al., Extraordinary shifts of the Leidenfrost
temperature from multiscale micro/nanostructured surfaces, Langmuir 29
(2013) 9798–9806.
[11] X.W. Wang, J.Y. Ho, K.C. Leong, An experimental investigation of single droplet
impact cooling on hot enhanced surfaces fabricated by selective laser melting,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 120 (2018) 652–670.
[12] S.H. Kim, Y. Jiang, J. Kim, Droplet impact and LFP on wettability and
nanostructured surface, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 99 (2018) 85–93.
[13] H. Kim, B. Truong, J. Buongiorno, et al., On the effect of surface roughness
height, wettability, and nanoporosity on Leidenfrost phenomenon, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 98 (2011) 083121.
[14] R. Hays, D. Maynes, J. Crockett, Thermal transport to droplets on heated
superhydrophobic substrates, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 98 (2016) 70–80.
[15] S.H. Kim, J.Y. Kang, H.S. Ahn, et al., Study of Leidenfrost mechanism in droplet
impacting on hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces, Int. J. Air-Cond. Refrig. 21
(2013) 1350028.
[16] Y. Takata, S. Hidaka, J.M. Cao, et al., Effect of surface wettability on boiling and
evaporation, Energy 30 (2005) 209–220.
[17] C.E. Clavijo, J. Crockett, D. Maynes, Hydrodynamics of droplet impingement on
hot surfaces of varying wettability, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 108 (2017) 1714–
1726.
[18] J.Y. Park, A. Gardner, W.P. King, et al., Droplet impingement and vapor layer
formation on hot hydrophobic surfaces, J. Heat Transf. 136 (2014).
[19] Z. Wang, J. Xiong, W. Yao, et al., Experimental investigation on the Leidenfrost
phenomenon of droplet impact on heated silicon carbide surfaces, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 128 (2019) 1206–1217.
[20] G. Liang, S. Shen, Y. Guo, et al., Boiling from liquid drops impact on a heated
wall, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 100 (2016) 48–57.
[21] T. Tran, H.J.J. Staat, A. Prosperetti, et al., Drop impact on superheated surfaces,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 036101.
[22] C.E. Clavijo, K. Stevens, D. Maynes, Thermally induced atomization during
droplet impingement on superheated hydrophobic and superhydrophobic
surfaces, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 126 (2018) 1357–1366.
[23] M. Shirota, M.A.J. Limbeek, C. Sun, et al., Dynamic Leidenfrost effect: relevant
time and length scales, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 064501.
[24] M. Rein, Drop-surface interactions, Springer, Vienna, 2002.
[25] S. Lin, B. Zhao, S. Zou, et al., Impact of viscous droplets on different wettable
surface: Impact phenomenon, the maximum spreading factor, spreading time
and post-impact oscillation, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 516 (2018) 86–97.
[26] Y. Nam, J. Wu, G. Warrier, et al., Experimental and numerical study of single
bubble dynamics on a hydrophobic surface, J. Heat Transf. 131 (2009) 121004.