Aerosol Science and Technology

ISSN: 0278-6826 (Print) 1521-7388 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uast20

Impaction and Rebound of Particles at Acute

Incident Angles

Mindi Xu, Klaus Willeke, Pratim Biswas & Sotiris E. Pratsinis

To cite this article: Mindi Xu, Klaus Willeke, Pratim Biswas & Sotiris E. Pratsinis (1993)
Impaction and Rebound of Particles at Acute Incident Angles, Aerosol Science and Technology,
18:2, 143-155, DOI: 10.1080/02786829308959590

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829308959590

Published online: 11 Jun 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1405

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uast20
Impaction and Rebound of Particles at Acute
Incident Angles
Mindi Xu* and Klaus Willeke"
Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0056
Pratim Biswas
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
45221-0071
Sotiris E. Pratsinis
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0171
- -
When a particle impacts on a surface at an angle < 90",
only the normal component of the impact velocity is
usually considered to contribute to deformation. A new
model has been developed in which the impact velocity
tangential to the surface contributes towards lateral
rotation during impact, and the remaining tangential
kinetic energy and the stored elastic deformation energy
provide the energy for particle rebound. Calculations
INTRODUCTION
Most investigations on particle bounce
have focused on the particle-surface inter-
action at an incidence angle of 90" to the
surface (Dahneke, 1971, 1973, 1975;
Rogers and Reed, 1984; Wall et al., 1990;
Tsai et al., 1990). When particles impact
onto a cylinder, a flat surface or the edge
of a blunt-body inlet, however, some or all
of the particle trajectories may deviate
from the normal direction, as seen, for
instance, in the experiments of Bitter
(1963), Rao and Whitby (1977, 1978),
"Present address: Indoor Environment Program,
Building 90-3058, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA 94720.
'TO whom correspondence should be addressed.
Aerosol Science and Technology 18:143-155 (1993)
O lW3 Elsevier Scicnce Publishing Co., Inc.
-
with the model for conditions used in published experi-
ments compare well with the data and explain observed
dependencies. I t was found that the rebound velocity
and also the critical velocity, at which rebound starts,
are strongly dependent on the incident impact angle.
Aspects of the new model have been used to calculate
and explain the performance of a newly developed
particle bounce monitor.
Esmen et al. (1978), Ellenbecker et al.
(19801, Paw U (19831, Wang and John
(1987). The bounce of particles from a
given surface has been observed to depend
on the incident angle of the particles'
trajectories. Broom (1979) measured this
dependence by high-speed photography
of the impaction and rebound of glass
particles.
More recently, Tabakoff and Malak
(1987) measured the rebound velocity of
flyash particles after impacting onto a steel
plate and found that the rebound velocity
of 15-pm particles was 1.8 times higher at
an acute incident angle of 1.5" than at an
angle of 60". When the impact velocity of
a particle exceeds a critical velocity, the
particle rebounds from the surface; below
the critical velocity the particle remains
144
on the impact surface. Wang and John
(1988a) found that the critical velocity of
an impacting particle also depends on the
incident angle. Ammonium fluorescein
particles of 6.86 p m impacting on a stain-
less steel cylinder at a velocity of 0.42 m/s
stayed on the cylinder when impacted at
90" to the surface, but rebounded when
the angle was decreased to 75" or less.
Wang and John (1988a) attributed this
phenomenon to the change in adhesion
energy between the contact surface and
the particle. Subsequently, Wang (1990)
found that particle lift-up from a surface
is angle dependent.
In this study a theoretical model is
developed to determine particle rebound
characteristics for impaction at incident
angles between 0 and 90". The impact
velocity is resolved into normal and tan-
gential components. The normal compo-
nent results in particle movement towards
the impact surface leading to elastic and
plastic deformation in the particle-surface
system. The tangential velocity compo-
nent and the energy in elastic deforma-
tion determine the degree of particle
rebound. Calculations with the new model
are compared to several experimental
measurements.
PARTICLE-SURFACE INTERACTION
MODEL
Figure 1 is a representation of the distinct
stages of particle impaction and rebound,
as we have incorporated them into our
model. A particle of radius R and mass rn
approaches the target surface with veloc-
ity Vl and impacts onto the surface at
angle ai with impact kinetic energy
Ek, = mu2/2, as shown in Figure 1-1.
Impact velocity V, is resolved into its nor-
mal component, V,,,, and its tangential
component, y,,.
On impacting the surface, the normal
velocity component elastically deforms the
particle and the target surface, whereas
Xu et al.
the particle is rotated by the tangential
velocity component (Figure 1-11). After
time At the particle center has moved
parallel to the target surface by a distance
I/,.,At. During rotation, some of the parti-
cle's kinetic energy is expended towards
lifting part of its surface from contact with
the target surface. This adhesion energy
in the tangential direction is labeled E , ,
in Figure 1-111.
The model developed in this study for
acute-angle impaction is an extension of a
model developed for 90" impaction (Xu
and Willeke, 1992a). The elastic deforma-
tion of the original particle material is
referred to as "primary" elastic deforrna-
tion, to distinguish it from other elastic
deformations that may occur subse-
quently. Thus, E,,, represents the energy
stored in primary elastic deformation of
the original particle material when
deformed over an area of radius R,
(Figure 1-111).
When the elastic stress limit of the
particle material is exceeded, an amount
of energy E, is lost in plastic deformation.
The region above the plastically hardened
zone of radius R , also stores elastic
,
energy, E , (Figure 1-IV). The plastically
deformed layer hardens and attains a new
stress limit which may be considerably
higher than that of the original material.
Secondary elastic deformation energy in
the plastically deformed layer, E,, ,, has
been found to be as much as 50% of the
normal component of E , , , and has,
therefore, been incorporated into the
right-angle impaction model (Xu and
Willeke, 1992a). Removal of the particle
in the normal direction has to overcome
the adhesion energy in that direction E,, ,.
In order to simplify the acute angle model,
it is assumed that no horizontal move-
ment occurs during plastic deformation by
the normal velocity component.
Finally, the particle leaves the impact
surface with rebound velocity V, and
kinetic energy E,,,, if it can overcome the
Impaction and Rebound of Particles
PRIMARY
ELASTIC
DEFORMATION
PLASTIC A N D
SECONDARY
ELASTIC
DEFORMATION
sum of energies E,, E,, and E,,,. The
normal velocity component, V,,,, depends
on E, and E,,,, and the tangential com-
ponent, V,,,, depends on E, ,. In general,
the angle of rebound, a,, is, therefore,
different from incident angle, ai.
Particle Rotation
Figure 2 represents aspects of particle
rotation that have been incorporated into
our acute-angle impaction model. When
FIGURE 1. Particle-surface
interaction model: I, incident
particle before impact; 11, first
contact; 111, at the time before
plastic deformation starts; IV,
during plastic deformation; V,
after rebound.
plastic deformation starts, the centers of
the particle and the target have
approached each other by distance he
(Bitter, 1963; Rogers and Reed, 1984),
where y , is the primary elastic stress limit
and K is a mechanical constant, com-
posed of elastic constants k, and k , of
the particle and target materials, respec-
 Xu et al.

CONTACT ELASTIC
DEFORMATION

FIGURE 2. Particle rotation

during primary elastic defor-
mation.

TOP
VIEW

tively, 1963). The diameter of the primary elastic

4 deformation zone, therefore, - equals
K=
3 i k , + k2) '
The mechanical constants are calculated
from the Poisson ratio, v, and the modu-
lus of elasticity, (Me),, where i = 1 repre-
sents the particle and i = 2 represents the
target material. (The usual representation
of the modulus of elasticity by the symbol
E is not used here to avoid confusion with
the various energy terms).
(4Rh, - h;)'l2, as shown in the side view
of Figure 2-11, During tangential move-
ment at rotational speed w = V,,,/R, the
particle moves distance V,,,At (which is
exaggerated considerably in the top view
of Figure 2 in order to illustrate the pro-
cess). Time interval At represents the total
time during which primary elastic
deformation occurs, i.e., the time to move
the centers closer to each other by he:

It is generally assumed that the particle In this equation, V,,, is assumed to be

is compressed by half of h,, and the tar- constant and equal to the initial velocity,
get is compressed by the other half (Bitter, in that substantial velocity is generally still
Impaction and Rebound of Particles
available before plastic deformation starts.
Upon first contact (top view of Figure
2-11, the particle starts deforming elasti-
cally and continues to do so for the entire
time interval At (top view of Figure 2-11).
Estimates with the plastic deformation
equation by Wang and John (1988b) show
that At for primary elastic deformation is
much longer than the plastic deformation
and outcoming contact duration time.
Therefore, we have simplified the expres-
sion for particle rotation by assuming that
rotation stops at the onset of plastic
deformation. The contact area between
the two bodies during this tangential
movement is an isosceles triangle with
area A,:
The surface adhesion energy overcome
by the particle's tangential impact kinetic
energy is
where Ay is the surface adhesion energy
between particle and target per unit area
of contact. An estimate of the latter may
be calculated from Derjaguin, et al. (1975)
where E is the adhesion distance, which is
assumed to be 0.4 nm, and A is the
geometrical mean of the two individual
Hamaker constants, A, for the particle
and A, for the target, i.e., ( A , A2)'l2.
When the rotation stops, seen in Figure 2,
the rear half of the contact area is not
broken, but the contact distance is in-
creased by the tangential movement. This
increase in contact distance may not sig-
nificantly change the surface adhesion
energy of that contact area, but partial
kinetic energy is consumed by this increase
in contact distance. We consider the
kinetic energy consumed by increasing the
147
contact distance to be the adhesion energy
of the same contact area.
During tangential movement dynamic
friction loss of the particle kinetic energy
is related to several parameters, such as
surface roughness, contact forces, and
movement pattern (rolling or sliding). We
assume that the particle is rolling on a
smooth surface with an adhesion contact
distance of 0.4 nm. Therefore, the dynamic
friction loss of the particle kinetic energy
is negligible.
Elastic and Plastic Deformation
In the plastically deformed zone the parti-
cle material hardens to a new elastic stress
limit (Bitter, 1963), which we have defined
as the secondary elastic stress limit, y,.
The energy stored in secondary elastic
deformation is (Xu and Willeke, 1992a)
where P, is the average surface contact
pressure between particle and target,
which can be calculated (Bitter, 1963;
Johnson, 1970; Tsai et al., 1990)
Constants C, and C, in our calculations
are equal to 0.41 and 0.25, respectively
(Tsai et al., 1990).
The energy stored in primary elastic
deformation is (Bitter, 1963; Rogers and
Reed, 1984)
1
E,,, = -my2,
2
where V, is the elastic limiting velocity,
above which plastic deformation occurs
148
and below which only primary elastic
deformation takes place.
where p, is the particle density.
Compression of the particle above the
plastically deformed layer results in addi-
tional storage of elastic energy (Rogers
and Reed, 1984)
The energy lost in plastic deformation is
(Bitter, 1963)
The normal component of the impact
kinetic energy, E,,i,,, equals the sum of
all elastic and plastic deformation ener-
gies
+ E e , l + Ee,2 + E p .
E k , i , n = Ee,o (I4)
Equation 14 is used in the model to
calculate the radius of the plastically
deformed layer
\ 1/4
( 15)
Since E , , depends on R,, Eq. 15 is solved
by iteration (Xu and Willeke, 1992a).
Critical and Rebound Velocity
When a particle impacts a target in the
normal direction, the stored elastic ener-
gies are the only energy sources for parti-
cle rebound. When the particle impacts
on a target at an acute angle, the tangen-
tial component of the particle's impact
velocity also contributes towards removal
of the particle. The angle of rebound, a,,
Xu et al.
is given by the ratio of V,,, to V,,,. The
kinetic energy at rebound is less than
the kinetic energy upon impact by the
sum of all the energies that need to be
overcome:
E,,i =E,r +'a,, + E a , t + Ep. ( 16)
The rebound velocity is, therefore,
The ratio of particle rebound velocity to
impact velocity constitutes the coefficient
of restitution, e,
r
e=--= /l-2(~a,n+~a,t+~p)
v, rnK2
(18)
The critical velocity, K,, is the maxi-
mum impact velocity at which no rebound
occurs. The adhesion energy in the nor-
mal direction E , , , can be calculated
through the equations for total adhesion
energy (Wall et al., 1990; Xu and Willeke,
1992a). From Eq. 17,
The energy terms in Eq. 19 are a function
of the particle impact velocity, and hence
Eq. 19 is an implicit function of velocity.
MODEL APPLICATION TO
PUBLISHED DATA
Calculations with the new model have
been performed on the experimental data
of Tabakoff and Malak (1987) who used
laser-Doppler anemometry to measure the
impact and rebound velocities of flyash
particles impinging on a stainless steel
plate that was positioned at incident
angles of 15" and 75". The flyash was
polydisperse with a mass median diameter
of 15 pm. The measured impact velocity
near the impact surface was 98 m/s for
all angles. The experimental measure-
ments are presented in Figure 3 for each
Impaction and Rebound of Particles

As seen in Figure 3, the theoretical

FLYASH PARTICLES, d,=15 pm
STEEL TARGET
>-
\ cient of restitution with increase in ai.
INCIDENT ANGLE, oli , degrees
FIGURE 3. Model application to the data of
Tabakoff and Malak (1987).
ai. A best-fit line (dashed line in Figure 3 )
connects the mean values representing a
wide spread of their data.
Their experimental conditions were
used as input parameters for the model
(Table 1). The mechanical parameters for
flyash were estimated by proportional
averaging of the parameters for its two
major components, 45% of Al,0, and
55% of SiO, (Sheehy et a]., 1968). It was
assumed that elastic-plastic deformation
occurred at all incident angles.
model predicts a decrease in the coeffi-
The experimental data show a similar rate
of decrease from 15" to 45", but are
approximately constant from 45" to 75".
Because the experimental data have a
wide spread, it is not clear whether the
mean data correctly represent the pro-
cess. The differences in coefficient of
restitution between experimental data and
theoretical prediction may be attributed
to uncertainties in the mechanical param-
eters used in the calculations. The as-
sumption of a single median size for the
polydisperse particle size distribution
may also contribute significantly to the
difference.
As Wall et al. (1990) have made bounce
experiments with 2.58 p m ammonium
fluorescein particles on targets of molyb-
denum, silicon, and mica, their parame-
ters have been used in calculations with
our model. As seen in Figure 4, the criti-
cal velocity at which rebound starts is
1.8 m/s for impaction on molybdenum at
15". The critical velocity increases to
2.7 m/s at 60" and 3.2 m/s at 90°, which
is 1.7 times higher than at 15". Similar
increases have been calculated for the
other two targets.
We attribute the shapes of the curves
to competition between two dominating

TABLE 1. Parameters Used in Calculating Particle Rebound

Modulus of Elastic Hamaker's
Density, elasticity, Poisson stress constant
P Mc ratio, limit, y, A
Material (g/cm3) (dyn/cm2) v (dyn/cm2 ) (10- " erg)
Steela 7.8 2.1 x 10l2 0.3 1.35 x 10''' 1.2~
Flyash 1.8 7.23 X 10" 0.22 3.2 X 10" 5.0'
(NH,),SO, 1.77 2.38 x lo1'' 0.317" 9.9 X loR 3.66b
A1 2.82d 6.89 X 10"' 0.33' 2.75 X logd 1.48'
"Bitter (1963).
h
Visser (1972).
"Simmons and Wang (1971).
d ~ a t c (1984).
h
"Gray (1972).
150
Particles, d,=2.58 pm
TARGET
silicon
molyb-
denum
mica
INCIDENT ANGLE, a i , degrees
FIGURE 4. Dependence of critical velocity on
incident angle.
factors. At low incident angles, relatively
little kinetic energy is stored in the pri-
mary and secondary elastic deformation
by the impact component in the normal
direction, and the tangential velocity com-
ponent results in particle bounce at a low
critical velocity. As the incident angle
increases, the energy lost in plastic
deformation increases rapidly and the
tangential component of the impact veloc-
ity decreases which leads to the indicated
increase in critical velocity with increasing
incident angle. At about ai= 45", the
curve levels off, because a further increase
in V,, due to plastic deformation by the
normal velocity component is offset by a
decrease in energy needed to overcome
the total adhesion energy between parti-
cle and surface, see also Eq. 19. As the
contact area increases at ai> 45", the
energies stored in elastic and plastic
deformations dominate the rebound pro-
cess and K, increases again. Ultimately,
near 90°, the curve levels off again,
because the normal component of the
impact velocity becomes less sensitive to
changes in ai.
Xu et al.
CALCULATIONS FOR PARTICLE BOUNCE
MONITOR
Prior to the development of this model,
we had designed and built a particle
bounce monitor (PBM) for measuring the
bounce properties of unknown aerosols
(Xu and Willeke, 1992b). The data
obtained with the PBM motivated the
search for a new particle impact and
rebound model. The geometry of the PBM
is very complex compared to the simple
impact geometry of the previous exam-
ples. Because only integrated data for all
particle trajectories in the PBM are avail-
able at this time, comparisons of calcu-
lated to measured rebound velocities for
individual particles are not possible. How-
ever, several calculations have been made
for the PBM that support aspects of the
new model.
Figure 5 shows the relevant coordinates
and symbols used in the calculations. The
same figure will be used to explain the
principle and significant features of the
PBM. Details are given in Xu and Willeke
(1992b).
The aerosol is drawn into the PBM
through a conical inlet with 8, = 60°,
which becomes a channel of constant
cross-section with diameter D l = 1.1 cm.
The aerosol leaves the inlet as a free jet
with air velocity U,. As the particle
approaches the impact surface, labeled
"bounce surface" in Figure 5, the particle
may have a radial velocity component, I/,.
Symbols r and R are not used to avoid
confusion with the subscript for rebound
and the various particle and contact area
radii. The vertical direction is labeled by
symbol z.
The bounce surface of outer diameter
D , = 2.54 cm and inner diameter D,=
0.48 cm is inclined to the inlet flow by
angle 8,/2, and is separated from the
inlet by distance S1 = 1.27 cm. The flow
through the center hole of the bounce
surface is constant and is led to a particle
counter, photometer, or size spectrome-
Impaction and Rebound of Particles
BOUNCE SINK
SURFACE
---- D212
ter. If no air is withdrawn laterally in the
x-direction, few of the particles in the
inlet reach the bounce surface. However,
when a flow equal to or larger than the
center extraction flow is withdrawn later-
ally, the downward particle velocity is sig-
nificantly increased and particles will
reach the bounce surface. If the particles
are liquid, they are removed by that sur-
face. If they are solid and bouncy, most of
them will bounce into the center flow and
significantly increase the particle number
concentration measured in that flow. Thus,
e
FIGURE 5. Coordinates and
dimensions in the particle
bounce monitor.
----t
the particle concentration in the extracted
center flow is a measure of particle
bounce.
The amount of bounce also depends on
the angle of inclination of the bounce
surface. Three angles have been studied:
8, = 180" (flat), 120°, and 60°, as shown in
Figure 6. The particle impact velocities
were numerically calculated by assuming
potential flow and a point sink for the
center extraction flow (Tietjens, 1934;
Dunnett and Ingham, 1986). The dimen-
sionless equations for particle motion
FIGURE 6. Three impact sur-
faces in the particle bounce
monitor.
 Xu et al.

(Friedlander, 1977) were used to calculate

the particle velocities and trajectories (Xu,
1992).

Impact Kinetic Energy

The average particle impact velocity was
used to calculate the kinetic energy on the
bounce surface of the PBM. The experi-
mental data, obtained with the PBM, have
been presented as the bounced particle
concentration, C,, , defined as the differ-
ence between the centrally extracted con-
centrations of bouncy and nonbouncy
particles (Xu and Willeke, 1992b),

The data obtained for 2-18 p m potas-

sium hydrogen phthalate (KHP) and 2-15

p m ammonium sulfate [(NH4),S04] par-
ticles are shown in Figure 7 as a function
of the calculated particle impact kinetic
energies. The initial particle velocities in
the inlet of the PBM ranged from 5 to 20
m/s.
As expected, only a few of the small
particles with low impact velocity (smal-
lest Ek,i)rebound, while the fraction of
rebounded larger particles (high Ek,i) is
high. The best-fit lines are approximately
linear over the indicated range of impact
kinetic energies. The coefficients for the
lines, C,,/Co = A + B E , , , are given in
Figure 7. For a given impact kinetic
energy, the 8, = 60" bounce surface results
in a higher fraction of bounced particles
than the other two surfaces. As a, is
lower for 60" than for 120" and 180°, the
critical velocity for rebounding the parti-
cle is lowest for 60". This effect has been
predicted, as shown in Figure 4, and has
now been verified by the experimental
data of Figure 7.
In the discussion of Figure 4 it was
argued that the mechanisms associated
with the tangential kinetic energy domi-
Ipl::k
(NH4)2S.04 PARTICLES
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5 0 0 0
IMPACT KINETIC ENERGY, Ek,i . 10-'ergs
FIGURE 7. Dependence of the bounced particle
concentration on impact kinetic energy.
nate rebound at small incident angles,
while the mechanisms associated with the
normal kinetic energy dominate rebound
at large incident angles. Figure 8 shows
that for the geometry of the PBM the
tangential impact velocities are indeed
highest for 0, = 60". The normal impact
velocity dominates at 8, = 180". The cal-
culations are shown for the range of radial
positions over which particle impact
occurs.
Particle Rebound Velocity
When the critical velocity is exceeded and
the particle rebounds, one may ask how
Impaction and Rebound of Particles
a.& ! O.& o.;~
RADIAL POSITION, x/(~,/2)
FIGURE 8. Components of particle impact
velocity in particle bounce monitor.
much of the impact velocity is recovered
in rebound. Figure 9 shows calculations
with our model for (NH4),S04 particles
impacting on an aluminum plate. The
parameters used in the calculations are
given in Table 1. The bounce surface of
the PBM is made of aluminum and
(NH4),S04 particles have been used in
the experiments over the indicated range
of impact velocities. As seen, the coeffi-
cient of restitution is considerably higher
for ai= 30" (approximately corresponding
to 8, = 60") than for the larger angles.
NH4)2S04 PARTICLES d p = l 1.3 prr
ALUMINUM TARGET
INCIDENT
ANGLE, a i
I 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 !
5 10 15 20 25 30 i
IMPACT VELOCIN, Vi, rn/s
FIGURE 9. The effect of impact incident angle
on particle rebound velocity.
This implies that less of the impact kinetic
energy is lost at a, = 30° than at a, = 60"
or 90" (approximately corresponding to
0, = 120" and 180"). The energy lost in
plastic deformation may be close to 50%
of the normal component of the kinetic
impact energy (Xu and Willeke, 1992a).
Therefore, the relative amount of impact
kinetic energy lost in plastic deformation
and adhesion is likely to be higher for
large incident angles than for small one.
The higher coefficient of restitution for
small incident angles also implies that
particles rebounding at an acute angle will
reapproach the surface at a further dis-
tance than particles rebounding at a high
angle of rebound. The particle rebound-
ing at an acute angle travels further
because of the angle, but also because
more of its impact velocity is retained.
Secondary deposits have been observed in
many inertial impactors (May, 1975;
Willeke and Pavlik, 1979). In such devices,
only the particle trajectory at the stagna-
tion point is perpendicular to the impact
surface. Adjacent particle trajectories may
154
approach the surface at an angle which
may result in bounce away from the pri-
mary deposition region. The secondary
deposit region may be some distance away
with little or no particles collected in
between.
CONCLUSIONS
When a particle impacts on a surface at a
small incident angle, the normal compo-
nent of the impact velocity deforms the
particle elastically and plastically, and the
tangential component contributes towards
removal of the particle from the surface.
The particle may rotate on the surface
depending on its tangential kinetic energy
and its surface adhesion energy. Particle
rebound depends on the energy stored in
elastic deformation and the tangential
kinetic energy not lost to overcoming
surface adhesion.
A theoretical model has been devel-
oped by incorporating these concepts. It
has been used to calculate particle
rebound velocities at different impact
angles. The model predicts a strong
dependence of particle rebound velocity
on the impact angle, as previously found
by experiments. The rebound velocity is
higher at an acute angle compared to that
at a higher incident angle. Therefore, par-
ticles impacting on a surface at a small
incident angle may bounce further away
from the impact point than particles
impacting at a larger incident angle.
Even if the particle impact velocity is
kept the same, the critical velocity at which
particle rebound occurs, depends on the
incident angle. The critical velocity is
smallest at small incident angles. The
dependence of critical velocity on incident
angle can be explained by the variations
with angle of the total adhesion energy,
plastic deformation energy, and tangential
kinetic energy. Particles impacting on a
funnel-like surface at an acute angle have
a small normal impact velocity component
Xu et al.
and a high tangential component, and will,
therefore, rebound more readily.
The financial support of Mindi Xu by the University of
Cincinnati through a graduate rcsearch assistantship is
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Bittcr, J . G. A. (1963). Wear 6 5 2 1 .
Broom, G. P. (1979). Filtration and Separation
16:661-669.
Dahnekc, B. (1971). J. Colloid Inteface Sci. 37:342-353.
Dahneke, B. (1973). J. Colloid Interface Sci. 45584-590.
Dahneke, B. (1975). J. Colloid Interface Sci 51:58-65.
Derjaguin, B. V., Muller, V. M., and Toporov, Y. P.
(1975). J. Colloid Interface Sci 53:314-326.
Dunnctt, S. J., and Ingham, D. B. (1986). J. Aerosol Sci.
17:839-853.
Ellenbecker, M. J., Leith, D., and Price, J. M. (1980). J.
Am. Pollut. Control Assoc. 30:1224-1227.
Esmen, N. A., Ziegler, P., and Whitfield, R. (1978). J.
Aerosol Sci 9547-556.
Friedlander, S. K. (1977). Smoke, Dust and Haze.
Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY.
Gray, D. (1972). American Institute of Physics Handbook
(3rd Edition). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hatch, J. E. (1984). Aluminum Properties and Physical
Metallurgy. American Society for Metals, Mctals
Park, OH.
Johnson, K. L. (1970). J. Mech. Phys. Solids. l8:ll5-126.
May, K. R. (1975). J. Aerosol Sci. 6:403-411.
Paw U , K. T. (1983). J. Colloid Interface Sci. 93:442-452.
Rogers, L. N., and Reed, J. (1984). J. Phys. D: Appl.
Phys. 17:677-689.
Rao, A. K., and Whitby, K. T. (1977). Am. Ind. Hyg.
Assoc. J, 38:174-179.
Rao, A. K., and Whitby, K. T. (1978). J. Aerosol Sci.
9:87-100.
Sheehy, J. P., Achinger, W. C., and Simon, R. A. (1968).
Handbook of Air Pollution. National Center for Air
Pollution Control, Durham, NC.
Simmons, G., and Wang, H. (1971). Single Crystal Elas-
fic Constant and Calculated Aggregate Properties: A
Handbook. 2nd edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Tabakoff, W., and Malak, M. F. (1987). J. Turboma-
chinery 109:535-540.
Tietjens, 0. G. (1934). Fundamentals of Hydro- and
Aeromechanics. Dover Publications, Inc., New York,
NY.
Impaction and Rebound of Particles

Tsai, C. J., and Pui, D. Y. H., and Liu, B. Y. H. (1990).
Aerosol Sci Technol. 12:497-507.
Visser, J. (19721. Advanced Colloid Intoface Sci.
3:331-363.
S., W., Wan& H. C.3 and Gore% S . (1990).
Aerosol Sci. Technol. 12926-946.
Wang, H. C. (1990). Aerosol Sci. Technol. 13:386-393.
Wang, H. C., and John, W. (1987). Aerosol Sci. Technol.
7:285-299.
Wang, H. C., and John, W. (1988a). Particles on Surface
1.: Detection, Adhesion, and Removal. (K. L. ~ i t t a l ,
ed.). Plenum Press, New York, p. 211.
Wang, H. C., and John, W. (1988b). J. Aerosol Sci
19:399-411.
Willeke, K., and Pavlik, R. E. (1979). J. Aerosol Sci.
10:l-10.
Xu, M, (1992). ph.D, Thesis, University of Cincinnati.
Xu, M., and Willeke, K. (1992a). L Aerosol Sci.,
manuscript accepted for publication.
Xu, M., and Willeke, K. (1992b). Aerosol Sci. Technol.
18:129-142.
Received 13 February 1992, accepted 20 July 1992.