THEORETICAL AND NUMERICAL

PREDICTIONS OF DROPLET DYNAMICS

IMPACTING ON A SOLID SURFACE

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

TIMOTHY.G. B (18103011)

ANISH.S (18103024)

VIGNESHWAR.P. B (18103032)

In partial fulfilment for the award of the degree

Of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
In
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICAL SCIENCE

HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
PADUR, CHENNAI-603103
MAY 2022

i
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
Certified that this project report titled “THEORETICAL AND
NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF DROPLET DYNAMICS
IMPACTING ON A SOLID SURFACE” is the bonafide work of
“TIMOTHY.G.B (18103011), ANISH.S (18103024), and
VIGNESHWAR.P. B (18103032)” who carried out the project work under
my supervision. Certified further that to the best of my knowledge the work
reported here does not form part of any other project / research work on the
basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion on
this or any other candidate.

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Dr. P. Vasanthakumar Dr. Purushothaman Nandagopalan
Assistant Professor (SG)
Department of Aeronautical Department of Aeronautical
Engineering Engineering
Hindustan Institute of Technology& Hindustan Institute of Technology&
Science Science
Padur Padur

The Project Viva-Voice Examination is held on ___________________

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to place on record our sincere thanks to all those who contributed to the
successful completion of our final year project work.

It’s a matter of pride and privilege for us to express our deep gratitude to the management of
Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science for providing us with the necessary facilities
and support.

We express our deep sense of gratitude to our respected Chairperson Dr. (Mrs.) Elizabeth
Verghese and Pro-Chancellor Dr. Anand Jacob Verghese for giving us an opportunity to
do the project.

We would like to thank our director Mr. Ashok Verghese and Vice-Chancellor Dr. S.N.
Sridhara for giving us moral support to complete this project.

We would like to express our grateful thanks to Dean (E&T)) Dr. Angelina Geetha and
Registrar Dr. Pon. Ramalingam for support and encouragement.

We extend our sincere thanks to our Head of the Department Dr. P. Vasanthakumar for
inspiring and motivating us to complete this project.

We would like to thank our guide Dr. Purushothaman Nandagopalan for continually
guiding and actively participating in our project, giving valuable suggestion to complete our
project.

We would like to thank all the faculty members of the School of Aeronautical Sciences, who
have directly or indirectly extended their support.

Last, but not least, we are deeply indebted to our parents who have been our greatest support
while we worked day and night for the project to make it a success.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
NO TITLE PAGE NO

ABSTRACT v
LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES vi
vii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION viii

01. INTRODUCTION 1

02. LITERATURE REVIEW 3

03. METHODOLOGY 5

04. RESULT & DISCUSSION 8

05. CONCLUSION 16

REFERENCE 17

iv
 ABSTRACT

In this study, we have presented experimental and analytical

considerations of a droplet impinging on a solid surface. The model that we have
done predicts the impinging characteristics of a liquid on Hydrophilic and
Hydrophobic Surfaces. The challenge of the complexity of this process
necessitates a knowledge of droplet effects such as viscoelastic dissipation,
surface tension effects, surface roughness, and wetness all have a role and
spreading, as well as the contact line's dynamics. Liquid characteristics, surface
wettability, and ambient circumstances all play a role in the fate of a liquid droplet
when it collides with a solid surface. This proposed model gives a good
prediction for the maximum spreading ratios (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of the Newtonian liquid i.e.,
water for different set of velocities and contact angles on both surfaces. The
analytical model that we developed was based on the energy conservation
approach. The final relation provides accurate predictions for Weber number
(We), Reynolds number (Re), and Maximum spread factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ).

v
 LIST OF FIGURE

TABLE PAGE
TITLE
NO. NO.

1.1 Morphology of drop impact on a dry surface 2

Comparison between time and spread factor on Hydrophilic surface

4.1 8
(Experimental)
Comparison between time and spread factor on Hydrophobic surface
4.2 9
(Experimental)

4.3 Comparison of Weber and Ohnesorge number of the droplet 9

Time variation (Numerical) of the spreading ratios for a Newtonian

drop (water) for various contact angles: (a) 18°, (b) 39.4°, (c) 79.8°,
4.4 (d) 108° 11

4.5 Variation of Maximum Spreading factor (βmax ) with respective 13

Contact angle (θ°) and Weber number for Analytical

4.6 Spreading factor variation for numerical and analytical results 13

Variation of Spreading Factor and Weber number for Numerical and

4.7 Analytical Results for different contact angles 14

Spreading factor variation between analytical and actual results

4.8 15

vi
 LIST OF TABLE

TABLE PAGE
TITLE
NO. NO.

Results of maximum spreading factor for corresponding velocities

4.1 10
and contact angle by numerical approach

Results of Maximum Spreading factor for corresponding Velocities

4.2 12
and Contact angle by Analytical approach

vii
 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION

❖ Maximum spreading factor βmax

❖ Time T(ms)
❖ Weber number We
❖ Reynolds number Re
❖ Ohnesorge number Oh
❖ Density 𝜌(kg/m3)
❖ Velocity 𝑣(m/s)
❖ Surface Tension 𝜎(N/m)
❖ Viscosity 𝜇(pas)
❖ Diameter of the droplet D(m)
❖ Initial droplet radius R(m)
❖ Gravity g(N)
❖ Kinetic energy 𝐸𝑘 (J)
❖ Surface energy 𝐸𝑠 (J)
❖ Gravitational energy 𝐸𝑔 (J)
❖ Spreading energy 𝐸𝑠𝑝 (J)
❖ Viscous energy 𝐸𝑣 (J)
❖ Deformation energy 𝐸𝑑 (J)
❖ Height of the droplet at maximum ℎ𝑚 (m)
spreading radius
❖ Maximum spreading radius 𝑟𝑚 (m)
❖ Effective height ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 (m)
❖ Radius of the droplet before impact 𝑟0 (m)
❖ Contact angle 𝜃
❖ Initial equivalent radius of cylindrical drop 𝑅0 (m)
❖ Zero shear viscosity 𝜂0 (pas)
❖ Infinite shear viscosity 𝜂∞ (pas)

viii
0
1. INTRODUCTION:

Droplet impacts are research frequently to better understand a variety of phenomena

ranging from spraying, coating, and printing to self-cleaning and anti-icing. There are several
instances to choose from a droplet of rain hitting a glass pane, from everyday life or in industrial
applications molten metal droplet deposition for electronic printing, or droplet impacts of for a
more controlled deposition, polymers or surfactant solutions are commonly utilised. As a result,
it's crucial to comprehend droplet spreading and give it a meaningful name. The challenge of
the complexity of this process necessitates a knowledge of droplet effects such as viscoelastic
dissipation, surface tension effects, surface roughness, and wetness all have a role and
spreading, as well as the contact line's dynamics. Liquid characteristics, surface wettability,
and ambient circumstances all play a role in the fate of a liquid droplet when it collides with a
solid surface.

Experiments have discovered impact outcomes: deposition, receding breakup, jetting,

fingering, crown formation, quick splash, corona splash, partial rebound and complete rebound.
Deposition is where the diameter of drop spreads to its maximum and gets settle and remains
in the same position without breaking. After colliding with surface, the drop starts to break and
moves away from its initial position which is called receding breakup. When a drop hits a rough
surface, the "prompt splash" effect occurs, which is defined by the formation of droplets at the
contact line (where solid, gas, and liquid meet) at the start of the drop's spreading process on
the surface, when the liquid has a high outward velocity. The liquid layer can separate from the
wall due to lower surface tension which causes a "corona splash." During splashing phase, a
crown like shape were formed by the impacting drop, this phenomenon is known as crown
formation.

When a drop recedes after impact, "rebound" and "partial rebound" events might occur.
The kinetic energy of the falling drop forces the liquid to press higher as it approaches the
impact site, generating a vertical liquid column. Partial rebound occurs when a drop remains
partially on the surface but launches one or more drops at the top, whereas complete rebound
occurs when the entire drop departs the solid surface owing to this upward motion. Between
the incoming drop and the liquid layer, jetting forms in the centre of the neck. The
commencement of a kinematic discontinuity, regardless of the exact geometry of the free
surface, is the same as that of crown development. Droplet instabilities observed at the contact

1
line of drops of surfactant solutions spreading spontaneously on solid surfaces covered with a
coating of solvent are referred to as fingering.

Fig1.1: Morphology of drop impact on a dry surface

In the present study, we performed experiment and carried out analytical and
numerical calculation. We a derived a model to predict and find the maximum spreading factor
(𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of a drop impacting over two distinct surfaces i.e., hydrophilic and hydrophobic
surfaces and also found the maximum time (𝑡) of dispersion. Also, we plotted graphs for
maximum spreading ratio (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) with respective Weber number (𝑊𝑒), Reynolds number (𝑅𝑒),
time (𝑡).

2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW:

Many researches concentrate on the maximum spreading factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of the droplet
and suggest various scaling rules based on energy conservation reasoning. Lot of researches
has been carried out about the several Newtonian and non- Newtonian drop impacting on
certain surfaces like hot surface, dry surface and wet surface, hydrophilic and hydrophobic
surfaces until now. We took some those literatures as our references and used their assumption
and formulas for this study.

Researchers like A.L. Yarin, Brian L. Scheller, Douglas W. Bousfield, Jens Eggers, and
others have already discovered several formulae’s for calculating the spreading ratios and
parameters. According to Yarin’s, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech (2006) study he derived an equation
for calculating spreading 𝜉 = 0.061(𝑅𝑒 2 𝑂ℎ)0.166 relationship. This shows that the spreading
factor is proportional to Reynolds number, Ohnesorge number. He also found that the order of
1
𝜌𝐷 3 2
delay for a low viscosity liquid while receding will be in the order of ( ) .
𝜎

Researchers Brian L. Scheller and Douglas W. Bousfield have connected the maximum
spreading radius 𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.91(𝑅𝑒 2 𝑂ℎ)0.133 using the range of velocities and viscosities,
which is also dependent on Reynolds number and Ohnesorge number, in the journal Fluid
Mechanics and Transport Phenomena. We also observed that the splashing viscosity range
increases with increasing in drop size, drop velocity, surface tension and contact angle.

In 2010, Jens Eggers et al. developed equations to estimate dimensionless quantities

2𝜌𝑅𝑈 2 2𝑅𝑈
like 𝑊𝑒 = and 𝑅𝑒 = which shows the relations for finding Weber and Reynolds
𝜂 𝑣

number. These above relations demonstrates that the maximum spreading factor is reliant on
the derived relations which includes Reynolds number, Weber number and Ohnesorge number.
This implies by changing 𝑊𝑒, 𝑅𝑒, 𝑂ℎ we can also get various values for 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 .

From Bartolo D, Boudaoud A, Narcy G, et al. Physical Review Letters, (2007), 174502,
99(17), we found that since the average viscosity is determined by the overall deformation of
the droplet, it should behave similarly in both retraction and expansion. In Experiments in
fluids, (1996), 118–123, 21(2) by Ko Y and Chung S, it is said that the impinging velocity

3
linearly decreases with the droplet diameter increase for the half the percentage of breakup
probability.

Jan Breitenbach, et al., in their paper, Phenomena of Drop Impact on Hot Surfaces:
Pure Newtonian Liquids published in ICLASS 2015, 13thTriennial International Conference
on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems have found a relation for the drop size as 𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 =
1
6𝐷𝑁𝜎 3
( 𝜌𝑔 ) .

In 2011, E. Villermaux and B. Bossa, in their paper “Drop Fragmentation of Impact”

has explained about receding characteristics of a drop in liquid surface and also found an
𝜌𝑢02 𝑑0
expression for weber number by 𝑊𝑒 = for velocity range from 1 to 13 m/s.
𝜎

G. E. Cossali, A. Coghe, M. Marengo in 1997, in their paper the impact of a single drop
on a wetted solid surface, has shown their experimental results of a pure water impacting a
wetted solid surface and explained about its splashing characteristics and derived an expression
for splashing limit as 𝐾 = (𝑂ℎ−0.4 )𝑊𝑒.

Longquan Chen et al., did experiment on a water droplet impact on soft viscoelastic
surfaces with different velocities. They analysed and identified several phenomena dependent
on the dynamic interaction between the droplet and soft viscoelastic surface and found that the
background substrates below soft films can influence the surface stiffness and thus droplet
impact dynamics. J. M. Kolinski, L. Mahadevan and S. M. Rubinstein, have done an
experiment on drops can bounce from perfectly hydrophilic surfaces and their experiments
were carried out by impacting drops upon a freshly cleaved mica surface, which is a hydrophilic
surface with a vanishing contact angle.

We have referred "One-dimensional model for the prediction of impact dynamics of a

shear-thinning liquid drop on dry solid surfaces" by An S, Lee S and "Analytical consideration
of liquid droplet impingement on solid surfaces" by Yukihiro Yonemoto & Tomoaki Kunugi
as our main references for this study. We have performed our calculations and numerical
coding by comparing the results obtained by them.

4
3. METHODOLOGY:

In this chapter, we have discussed about our methods and approach in our project.

3.1 EXPERIMENTAL METHOD:

Our experiment was conducted on two distinct surfaces i.e., hydrophilic glass surface
and hydrophobic parafilm with the same Newtonian liquid drop. The liquid we have used here
is water. This Newtonian liquid showed different characteristics of spreading, receding and
rebounding in both surfaces. We recorded the experiment performed in a high-speed camera
which captures footage at a frame rate of 5000 frames per second. To gain a better
understanding of the experiment, we used various automated applications to analyze the
collected films. IMAGEJ and VIDEOMACH are the programs that were used to process the
video. First, we transformed the videos into photographs using VIDEOMACH software. For
each frame, these photos were converted from video. Then, using IMAGEJ software, we
analyze the photos to determine the diameter of the droplet and the droplet's contact angle at
each step of impact.

3.2 ANALYTICAL METHOD:

Many research concentrated on the maximum spreading factor 𝛽𝑚 of the droplet and
suggest various scaling rules based on energy conservation reasoning. We referred “Analytical
consideration of liquid droplet impingement on solid surfaces” by Yukihiro Yonemoto &
Tomoaki Kunugi and adopted their assumption of Energy conservation method. Then we
referred “one-dimensional model for the prediction of impact dynamics of a shear-thinning
liquid drop on dry solid surfaces” by Sang MO An & Sang Yong Lee and adopted their
assumption based on considering the droplet into a spherical shape. Then we combined these
adopted techniques and derived a new equation. Prior to droplet impingement, the energy
conservation technique incorporates both kinetic and surface energies, as well as surface energy
and viscous dissipation following impingement. The theoretical equation describing 𝛽𝑚 as a
function of 𝑑, 𝑅𝑒, and 𝑊𝑒 is now deduced. Although there are various empirical and semi-
empirical models in the literature, none of them can predict maximum spreading diameter

5
quantitatively. Here, contribution of adhesion force in the vertical component must be
considered in an energy conservation standpoint.
𝐸𝑘 + 𝐸𝑠 + 𝐸𝑔 = 𝐸𝑠𝑝 + 𝐸𝑣 + 𝐸𝑑 ---- (1)

The above-mentioned equation (1) is governing for our theoretical derivation from
previous research paper by Yonemoto and Kunugi. Where𝐸𝑘 , 𝐸𝑠 , 𝐸𝑔 , 𝐸𝑠𝑝 , 𝐸𝑣 , and 𝐸𝑑 are the
kinetic energy, initial surface energy, gravitational potential of the droplet, adhesion energy,
viscous dissipation, and deformation energy after the impingement, respectively.

Here 𝜌, 𝜇 , 𝜎𝑔 , 𝑉0 , 𝑑0 , and 𝑢 are the density of the liquid [kg m−3], viscosity of the liquid
[Pa s], surface energy density of liquid [J m−2], initial droplet volume [m3], initial droplet
diameter [m], and impinging velocity [m s−1] in the vertical direction, respectively. 𝑟𝑚
(𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 /2) is the maximum spreading radius [m], whereas the droplet height [m] and time [s] at
which 𝑟𝑚 is attained are denoted by ℎ𝑚 , and 𝑡𝑚 , respectively. 𝑢𝑅 and ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 are the liquid's radial
velocity [m s] along the solid surface following droplet impingement and the liquid film's
effective height [m] at a distance from the wall, respectively.

After several substitution and derivation and we finally get the following equation
below,

𝑊𝑒 27 𝑊 𝑟𝑜2 𝛽𝑚 2 (1−cos 𝜃)
𝛽𝑚 𝛽𝑚 ℎ𝑚 sin 𝜃 𝜌𝑔ℎ𝑚 𝑟𝑜
− 16 𝑅 𝑒 2 − 4 + 4 + + 3 − 𝑂ℎ = 0 ---- (2)
4 𝑒 ℎ𝑚 3
𝑟
3 𝑜
2𝜎𝑙𝑔

To find the relation for ℎ𝑚 , we used the assumption that the shape of the droplet before
impact is considered to be in a spherical shape and the after to be in cylindrical shape. We get,
4𝑟0
ℎ𝑚 = ---- (3)
3𝛽𝑚

Now substituting ℎ𝑚 in the equation (2) we get;

𝑊𝑒 1−𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 𝑊𝑒 2 𝜌𝑔𝑟𝑜
- 0.949 𝛽𝑚 7 – 4 𝛽𝑚 4 + ( − 3 − 𝑜ℎ) 𝛽𝑚 2 + 𝛽𝑚 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 + =0 ---- (4)
𝑅𝑒 4 3 𝜎𝑙𝑔
3

The equation (4) mentioned above is our final equation. Here 𝑊𝑒 , 𝑅𝑒 , 𝛽𝑚 are the
Weber number, Reynolds number and maximum spreading factor.

6
3.3 NUMERICAL METHOD:

To perform the numerical analysis for a Newtonian liquid (water) impacting on both
hydrophobic and hydrophilic surface, we have incorporated the values that we obtained from
the analytical calculation into a MATLAB code.

The analysis has been done with five different sets of impact velocities and several
constant parameters such as density (𝜌), surface tension (𝜎𝐿𝐺 ), initial impacting drop diameter
(𝑑), initial equivalent radius of cylindrical drop (𝑅0 ), cross time constant (𝑘), cross rate constant
(𝑚), height of the cylindrical drop (𝐻), zero shear viscosity (𝜂0 ), infinite shear viscosity (𝜂∞ ),
to estimate the maximum spreading factor (𝛽𝑚 ) of an impacting drop and the time taken to
attain equilibrium spreading (𝑡). For Newtonian liquids, the terms 𝑘, 𝑚 will become zero. Here,
𝜌𝜋𝑑3
the height cylindrical drop relation (𝐻 = 6𝜌𝜋𝑅2 ) is derived by using the mass conservation

formula between spherical drop (before impact) and cylindrical drop (after impact). And the
velocity radial in radial direction is given by

𝑑𝑅 2 1 𝑑
= ( 2 ∗ (1 + ∗ ( )6 ))−0.5
𝑑𝑡 3𝑉 30 𝑅

When a drop collides with a solid surface, it follows the energy balance relation. For
tiny droplets falling on a horizontal solid surface, the gravity effect is usually negligible, hence
the potential energy is equal to the surface energy. Therefore, the equation changes to

𝑑
(𝐸 + 𝐸𝑘 ) + 𝜋𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0
𝑑𝑡 𝑠

By this we can be able to balance the energy of the drop and later the maximum spreading
𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 can be found by using,

2𝑅
𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝑑

7
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

4.1 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS:

By using various software, we processed the videos of our experiment into images and
found the maximum spreading diameter, contact angle velocity of the droplet and its dynamics.

On a hydrophilic glass surface, the drop will not bounce back after hitting the surface
due to its surface tension. This means that the drop does not lose any energy as a result of
impacting this surface. The maximum spread of the liquid occurred at 433 milliseconds. The
maximum spread value we got through our experiment was 2.84mm. The contact angle of the
liquid during impact was 90.2. After 1450 milliseconds, it attains the equilibrium stage.

Fig 4.1. Comparison between time and spread factor on Hydrophilic surface (Experimental)

On the hydrophobic parafilm surface, the liquid will rebound (bounce back) with a
minimal amount of energy. This is because most of its energy was dissipated on the surface.
This implies that the hydrophobic surface has an impact on the liquid drop. The maximum
spread of the liquid occurred at 250 milliseconds. The maximum spread diameter we got by
our experiment was 2.86mm on this surface. Here, after the maximum spread, the drop starts
to recede about 1650 milliseconds, and then the rebounding regime starts with minimum energy

8
because most of the energy was dissipation energy caused by the parafilm surface. At 3450
milliseconds, it attains the equilibrium stage. The contact angle of the liquid is 93.04.

Fig 4.2. Comparison between time and spread factor on Hydrophobic surface
(Experimental)

By observing our experimental results, we found that based on the surface property,
the dynamics of the droplet will also change. Due to this reason, we did the experiment twice
and made two different results for the same substrates and liquid. With these obtained data’s,
we have plotted the graph between maximum spread factor of droplet versus time. Using these
graphs, we compared our values with other analytical and numerical findings.

9
 Fig 4.3. Comparison of Weber and Ohnesorge number of the droplet

By deducing the Weber number and Ohnesorge number from the obtained data we can
compare those values to check the droplet nature on that surface. There are four different
natures for the droplet which are Impact driven, Capillary driven, almost in viscid, and highly
viscous. The first quadrant on the graph is about Impact and inviscid of the droplet. The second
quadrant is about the inviscid and capillary of the droplet. The third quadrant is about Capillary
and viscous of the droplet. The last quadrant is about Viscous and the impact of the droplet.
Our calculated value of the weber number are 119.7, 213.11 and 1193 and the Ohnesorge
number value are 0.36, 0.034, and 0.027. These values will come under the first quadrant which
tells us that the droplet is high impact-driven and it is highly inviscid in nature.

4.2 NUMERICAL RESULTS:

The numerical results calculated by MATLAB is mentioned in Table.4.1. Given below,

which shows that the change in velocity (𝑚/𝑠) and contact angle (𝜃°) of the drop impacting on
the surface influences the maximum spreading factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of the drop comparatively.

10
 Table4.1. Results of maximum spreading factor for corresponding velocities and contact
angle by numerical approach

𝑘𝑔 𝑁
For 𝑑 = 2.67𝑚𝑚, 𝜌 = 998 , 𝜎𝐿𝐺 = 72.12
𝑚3 𝑚

Impact velocity Weber Number Contact angle 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥

18 3.00
39.4 2.17
0.8 23.64
79.8 1.96
108 1.86
18 3.00
39.4 2.63
1.4 72.41
79.8 2.46
108 2.35
18 3.12
39.4 2.88
2.1 162.93
79.8 3.05
108 2.82
18 3.61
39.4 3.56
3.2 378.34
79.8 3.46
108 3.390
18 3.89
39.4 3.86
4.0 591.16
79.8 3.77
108 3.71
18 4.14
39.4 4.11
4.8 851.27
79.8 4.03
108 3.98

11
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig 4.4. Time variation (Numerical) of the spreading ratios for a Newtonian drop (water) for
various contact angles: (a) 18°, (b) 39.4°, (c) 79.8°, (d) 108°

By comparing (a), (b), (c) and (d), FIG.4.4. We can see that the spreading factor
(𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of the Newtonian liquid (water) for velocities from 0.4 m/s to 4.8 m/s for contact angle
18°, 39.4°, 79.8° and 108° increases. For contact angle of 39.4°, the after reaching the 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥
,the curve starts to falls which indicates that the droplet starts to recede and after reaching the
time of 140 milliseconds approximately the drop attains its equilibrium state. For contact angle
of 79.8°, after reaching the 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 , the curve starts fall and shows a minimal bouncing and after
45 milliseconds it attains equilibrium state which indicates that the drop after receding shows
a minimal rebound condition and later on gets settled. For contact angle of 108°, after reaching
the 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 , the curve starts fall and shows greater bouncing condition compared to 79.8° and
starts to fall again and approximately after 60 milliseconds it attains equilibrium state which

12
indicates that the drop after receding, it impacts on the surface and starts to rebound and gets
deposited later after 60 milliseconds.

4.3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS:

The analytical results for equation (4) are been calculated and mentioned in Table.4.2.
Given below, which shows spreading factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) increases with increase in velocity of the
droplet whereas contact angle doesn’t show a major effect in spread factor compared to
numerical results.

Table4.2. Results of Maximum Spreading factor for corresponding Velocities and Contact
angle by Analytical approach

𝑘𝑔 𝑁
For 𝑑 = 2.67𝑚𝑚, 𝜌 = 998 , 𝜎𝐿𝐺 = 72.12
𝑚3 𝑚

Impact velocity Weber Number Reynolds Number Contact angle 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥

18 2.83
39.4 2.78
0.8 23.64 17.76 79.8 2.63
108 2.86
18 3.08
39.4 3.04
1.4 72.41 31.08 79.8 2.98
108 3.09
18 3.32
39.4 3.39
2.1 162.93 46.63 79.8 3.26
108 3.31
18 3.60
39.4 3.58
3.2 378.34 71.05 79.8 3.56
108 3.59
18 3.76
39.4 3.75
4.0 591.16 88.82 79.8 3.73
108 3.75
18 3.89
39.4 3.89
4.8 851.27 106.58 79.8 3.88
108 3.89

13
 Fig.4.5. Variation of Maximum Spreading factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) with respective Contact angle (𝜃°)
and Weber number for Analytical

By observing the Fig.4.5, for different contact angle and weber number the maximum
spreading factor gradually increases. For a Weber number > 200, there is minimal change in
spreading factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) for respective impacting angle. For the impacting velocities between
0.8 m/s to 4.8 m/s (Weber number 0 to 900), the 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 is in the range of 2.5 to 4.

14
4.4. COMPARISON BETWEEN MAXIMUM SPREADING FACTOR
ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL RESULTS: (𝛃𝐦𝐚𝐱 )

Fig.4.6. Spreading factor variation for numerical and analytical results

The FIG.4.6. The relationship for spread factor with respective numerical and analytical
calculations. By observing, we can understand that for impact velocities after 2.4 m/s, the
spread factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) shows very slight variation for different contact angle. Also, for velocity
range below 2.4m/s, the spread factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) values scattered in the graph which shows the
analytical and numerical calculations were agreeing for higher impact velocities. The weber
numbers contribution plays a major role in the deviation that’s seen in the graph i.e. as the
weber number (𝑊𝑒) increases the spreading factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) for different angles also becomes
nearly the same for higher velocities.

15
4.5. COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL
RESULTS: (𝛃𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝑽𝒔 𝑾𝒆)

Fig.4.7. Variation of Spreading Factor and Weber number for Numerical and Analytical
Results for different contact angles

By observing the Fig.4.7. We can see the variation of spreading factor and weber
number for analytical and numerical results for different contact angles. Here we have plotted
for four different contact angles 18°, 39.4°, 79.8° and 108°. The 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 values show great
correlation for weber number greater than 400 whereas for less than 400, the 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 value for
analytical and numerical results have more deviations.

16
4.6. COMPARISON BETWEEN MAXIMUM SPREADING FACTOR
FOR ANALYTICAL AND ACTUAL RESULTS: (𝛃𝐦𝐚𝐱 )

Fig.4.8. Spreading factor variation between analytical and actual results

From the above FIG.4.8. It is clear that both experimental and analytical results have
comparatively the same values for 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 .For a droplet with the velocity of 2.4 m/s and
impacting angle of 90.2 experimental 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 is found to be 2.84 and analytical 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 is 2.98 with
an error of ±4.69 whereas for a drop with the velocity of 2.4 m/s and impacting angle of 93.04,
the experimental 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 and analytical 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 are 2.86 and 3.02 with an error of ±5.29
respectively. From the above FIG 4.8 It is clear that, the comparison of 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 data of Yonemoto,
Roisman, Pasandideh, and experimental with respective our analytical result. From observing
the graph, we can say that the values of 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 are showing a great correlation with our analytical
result.

17
5. CONCLUSION:

In this study, we have presented experimental, analytical, and numerical

considerations of a droplet impinging on a solid surface. The model that we have done predicts
the impinging characteristics of a liquid on Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Surfaces. Here the
proposed model has given a good prediction for the maximum spreading ratios (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) of the
Newtonian liquid i.e., water for velocities ranging from 0.8 to 4.8 m/s for different contact
angles on both surfaces. For a drop with lower viscosity impacting on a hydrophilic surface,
the drop did not show any rebounding conditions whereas on a hydrophobic surface, the drop
showed both rebounding and receding characteristics compared to other studies. By the
𝑑
Numerical method, we plotted the time variations graph for non-dimensional diameters (𝑑 ) for
𝑜

a set of velocities from 0.8 to 4.8 m/s and different contact angles based on the energy balance
approach with a cylindrical disc approximation for water and showed the predictions for droplet
dynamics. The analytical model that we developed was based on the energy conservation
approach. The final relation provides accurate predictions for Weber number (We), Reynolds
number (Re), and maximum spread factor (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 ). The predictions that we obtained were much
similar to previous studies. We conclude that our predictions provide semi-empirical
correlations for the droplet's spreading factor. We will extend this model to non-Newtonian
liquids in future studies, as well as extend from one-dimensional to two-dimensional
predictions by integrating viscous law effects, and strive to expand our work on image
processing.

18
REFERENCE:











































19
PLAGARISM REPORT:

20