European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids

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

Modeling and simulation of droplet impact on elastic beams based on SPH T

a,b a a,∗
Xiangwei Dong , Xiaoping Huang , Jianlin Liu
a
Department of Engineering Mechanics, College of Pipeline and Civil Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, 266580, China
b
College of Mechanical and Electronic Engineering, China University of Petroleum(East China), Qingdao, 266580, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Theoretical formulation of droplet impact on elastic beams is relatively difficult, due to its transient, non-sta-
Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) tionary, and elasto-capillarity nature. In this study, a numerical model is proposed based on the smoothed
Fluid-solid interaction particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method to simulate the impact process of a droplet on elastic beams. Both of the
Surface tension liquid droplet and the elastic substrate are modeled by SPH, and this feature ensures that the fluid-solid inter-
Droplet impact
action can be solved in a unified framework. In addition, the continuum surface force (CSF) method is adopted to
Elastic beam
simulate the surface tension effect on the droplet impact. Robustness, concision and validity of the model are
validated by simulating a single water drop impact on elastic super-hydrophobic beams. Interesting phenomena
of droplet bouncing and beam vibrations are reproduced following the experiment. These analyses may be
beneficial to engineering new materials and new devices in such areas as fabrics, agriculture, petroleum, and
micro/nano technology.

1. Introduction the droplet. This phenomenon has been experimentally investigated

Phenomena of droplet impact widely exist in nature and industry,
such as ink-jet printing (van Dam and Le Clerc, 2004), anti-icing
(Vasileiou et al., 2017), and pesticide spraying (Smith et al., 2000). In
many of these processes, the substrates are oversimplified as rigid
boundaries, and the deformation has not been considered. Evidently,
this kind of modeling may differ from the actual working conditions
greatly, and a more realistic consideration is that elasticity must be
taken into account, especially for such structures of highly flexibility as
fiber (Dressaire et al., 2016), and plant leaves (Gart et al., 2015). In
practice, the droplet impact on elastic surfaces holds great potential for
industrial applications, such as engineering piezoelectric raindrop en-
ergy harvesters (Guigon et al., 2008) and making some plant leaves to
repel or absorb raindrops more efficiently (Gart et al., 2015). Under-
standing the interplay between droplet dynamics and material elasticity
is a challenging task, which may be beneficial to promote many in-
dustries.
From the viewpoint of continuum mechanics, the impact of droplet
on deformable surfaces is a classical fluid-solid interaction problem.
The special feature of droplet impact is that, surface tension plays an
important role to govern the behavior of the droplet, which manifests
itself in the form of lateral spreading and recoiling (Yarin, 2006), or
even bouncing (Richard et al., 2002). Upon impact, the droplet can
excite the substrate to vibrate, resulting in the “springboard effect” on
(Weisensee et al., 2016; Vasileiou et al., 2016). It was found that the
impact-induced vibration of the substrate helps to alter the outcomes of
the impact, such as contact time, which may provide a passive route to
manipulate the droplet dynamic behaviors.
Taking inspirations from nature, such as leaves, Gart et al. (2015)
theoretically studied the elastic response of cantilevers caused by water
droplet impact, including deflection, vibration, damping, and bending
energy; Soto et al. (2014) deduced the relationship between the im-
pacting force of raindrop and the deflection of cantilever based on the
momentum balance. In these theoretical models, more attentions were
focused on the mechanical behaviors of the substrate, while the droplet
behaviors were oversimplified. Due to configuration variation and
complex fluid dynamics inside the droplet during the impact, it is not an
easy thing to depict this interaction, solely by using theoretical and
experiment methods, and thus the numerical simulation may be an
effective way as a supplement.
A great deal of efforts have been taken on the numerical simulation
of droplet impact dynamics. Altogether, corresponding models have
been developed based on two categories of modeling frameworks, i.e.,
Eulerian and Lagrangian framework. The Eulerian methods can be
further classified as the volume-of-fluid (VOF) (Gunjal et al., 2005), and
level-set method (Zheng and Zhang, 2000), where the droplet impacts
were simulated in the framework of multiphase flow (i.e. liquid-gas
flow). However, one might encounter difficulties for analyzing the

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liujianlin@upc.edu.cn (J. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2019.01.026
Received 11 July 2018; Received in revised form 14 January 2019; Accepted 31 January 2019
Available online 08 February 2019
0997-7538/ © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

fluid-solid interaction problem by using Eulerian methods, including substrate are treated as continuous medium. In general, the motion of a
tracking the fluid-solid interface, transferring information between continuum (i.e., fluid, or solid) in the isothermal condition is for-
fluid and solid domains, and dealing with significant deformation of mulated by the continuity equation
solid. The Lagrangian methods, such as the smoothed particle hydro- D v
dynamics (Xu et al., 2014; Zhang, 2010) and lattice Boltzmann (Lee and =
(1)
Dt x
Liu, 2010), certainly have the advantage of tracking liquid-gas inter-
faces over Eulerian methods. Furthermore, the SPH method allows and by the momentum equation
dealing with fluid-solid interaction in a fully Lagrangian framework, Dv 1
and simulating the free surface of the fluid without any special treat- = +f
Dt x (2)
ment (Rafiee and Thiagarajan, 2009). These features ensure that the
forthcoming model of droplet impact on elastic surfaces is compact and where t is the time variable, the material density, v the velocity
simple. vector, and x is the position coordinate, is the total stress tensor, f
The SPH is a Lagrangian meshfree method, and it has been ex- represents the external force.
tensively applied in many fields of science and engineering, because of The total stress tensor in Eq. (2) is normally divided into two
its good adaptability and suitability for large deformation, and ease of parts: the isotropic pressure p and deviatoric or shear stress :
incorporating complex physics. The method has mature applications in
= p + (3)
both solid mechanics and fluid mechanics (Liu and Liu, 2010). In the
past decade, applications of SPH on fluid-solid interaction analysis have where is the Kronecker tensor (if = , = 1; otherwise, = 0 ).
also been reported (Rafiee and Thiagarajan, 2009; Antoci et al., 2007; For the fluid, the following equation of state (EOS) is used to cor-
Amini et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2013; Panciroli et al., 2012). Antoci et al. relate the pressure p with density as follows (Liu and Liu, 2003):
(Panciroli et al., 2012) proposed a fluid-structure interaction algorithm
based on the SPH method. By using a hypo-elastic constitutive relation, {p} f = c f2 0
f
the deformation of solid driven by the motion of fluid was simulated. (4)
Subsequently, similar models or analyses were developed or performed where the subscript f stands for fluid; cf and are the sound speed and
0
on simulation of fluid-solid interaction processes (Falahaty et al., 2018;
f
the reference density of the fluid. The sound speed of the fluid can be
Khayyer et al., 2018), such as wave-structure interaction (Liu et al., approximated based on the maximum velocity Umax : cf 50Umax .
2013), and hydroelasticity in water-entry problems (Panciroli et al., Similarly, the pressure of the solid is computed by the following
2012). However, these analyses are oriented to macro-scale problems linearized EOS:
without the need of considering the capillary effect.
In recent years, SPH has been used for simulation of capillarity {p} s = cs2 ( 0
s) (5)
phenomena. The most common case is the simulation of surface tension
where the subscript s stands for solid; cs is the sound speed of the solid,
effects under the scope of multiphase flow, such as bubble rising (Zhang
which is calculated as cs = K0 , where the parameter K is the bulk
et al., 2015; Grenier et al., 2013), droplet coalescence (Li et al., 2006; s
Hirschler et al., 2017), and surface wetting (Liu et al., 2011; Shigorina modulus of the solid, with the expression as K =
E
, where E is the
et al., 2017). In general, there exist two ways of modeling the surface
3(1 2 )
Young's modulus, and is the Poisson's ratio; is the reference density
0
tension in the light of the SPH method. The first is based on the van der s
of the solid.
Waals force implemented through particle-particle interactions (Nugent
The deviatoric stress tensor of the solid is solved by the incremental
and Posch, 2000). The second one is the continuum surface force (CSF)
formulation of Hooke's law with the Jaumann rate correction (Antoci
method (Brackbill et al., 1992), where the surface tension is expressed
et al., 2007):
as a function of the interface normal vector, curvature and surface
tension coefficient. The CSF method was first implemented in SPH by 1
{ } s = 2G + r + r ,
Morris (2000) in use of the color function for the interface tracking. 2 (6)
Using this method, it is convenient to correlate the surface tension with
where is the rate of deviatoric stress; G is the shear modulus of the
physical reality. From this point of view, the CSF method is more per-
solid; the strain rate tensor of the solid is expressed as:
ceptible than the first method.
In this study, the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method is 1 v v
{ }s = +
employed to establish the model of droplet impact on elastic surfaces. 2 x x (7)
This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, the governing equations
and the SPH discretized equations are presented for fluid and solid and r is the rotation rate tensor of the solid defined through:
phases. The continuum surface force (CSF) method is implemented 1 v v
through reconstructing the surface curve of the droplet. In section 3, the {r } s =
2 x x (8)
initial models are built and simulation parameters are introduced. In
section 4, we discuss the numerical results of a single droplet impacting
on two types of super-hydrophobic elastic beams, i.e. the fixed-fixed 2.2. Basic theory of SPH
beam and the cantilever. The numerical results are validated by com-
paring with analytical and experimental results. The computational domain is initialized by a series of uniformly
distributed SPH particles, as show in Fig. 1 (b). Each particle is assigned
2. Modeling physical parameter values and certain volume. The governing equations
described in the previous Eqs. (1) and (2) are discretized based on these
2.1. Governing equations SPH particles, which have been reviewed comprehensively [20–22].
Here, the theory of the SPH method is briefly introduced.
Let us first consider the computation domain, which is abstracted as There are two key steps in the formulation of SPH, which are kernel
a droplet-substrate system, as shown in Fig. 1 (a). The droplet impacts approximation and particle approximation. By using particle approx-
on the solid surface at the initial velocity U0 , causing elastic deforma- imation to estimate the gradient of velocity in Eq. (1), the SPH dis-
tion of the substrate. The droplet is modeled as a viscous fluid, and the cretized equation of continuity equation can be obtained (Liu and Liu,
substrate is viewed as an elastic material. Both of the droplet and the 2003):

238
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 1. Droplet impact on elastic surfaces. (a) Model formulation. (b) Schematic of the droplet-substrate system by SPH particles.

d i Ni
Wij hand, the fluid system and solid system are solved by using the same
= mj vij time integration scheme; on the other hand, when particle approx-
dt j =1
xi (9)
imation is performed on particles close to the fluid-solid interface,
where the subscripts i and j are the particle indices, and Ni the number particles interact only with particles of the same species (as illustrated
of particles located in the supporting domain of particle i. The radius of in Fig. 2). The interaction between fluid and solid is realized through
the supporting domain is correlated with the smoothing length, and the contact algorithm (see Fig. 3).
commonly expressed as rv = h , where the parameter is determined
by the kernel function, and h is the smoothing length. The parameter vij
is the velocity difference between two particles i and j, i.e., 2.3. SPH formulation for fluid and solid
vij = vi v j ; Wij is the abbreviation of the kernel function W (rij, h),
where rij is the distance between two neighbouring particles i and j; i Wij The standard SPH formulation is unstable for the numerical simu-
is the gradient of the kernel function with respect to xi , and can be lation. Antoci et al. (2007) adopted two corrective terms in terms of
Wij
written in partial differential form as i Wij = x = r
xi xj Wij
, where xi artificial stress and artificial viscosity to ensure the robustness of the
SPH simulation for fluid-solid interaction analysis. Results showed that
r i ij ij
and xj are the position vectors of particle i and j.
the use of artificial stress effectively eliminates the tensile instability
Similarly, the SPH discretized equation of momentum equation can
occurring in the solid domain, and spurious numerical oscillations are
be obtained by using particle approximation techniques to estimate the
spatial derivative in Eq. (2) (Liu and Liu, 2003):

Ni
dvi i + j Wij
= mj + fi
dt j=1 i j xi (10)

In SPH, there are many possible choices on the kernel function. The
cubic spline function is used in this study and expressed as (Liu and Liu,
2003):
2 1
3
q2 + 2 q3 , 0 q<1
Wij = d × 1
6
(2 q) 3 , 1 q<2 (11)

where d is the normalization factor, which is 15/(7 h2) for 2D problem;

q is defined as q = rij / h . The smoothing length is set as a constant, i.e.
h = 1.2 × dini , where dini is the initial particle spacing. The radius of the
supporting domain is rv = 2h = 2.4 × dini .
The standard SPH formulation based on Eqs. (9) and (10) is uni-
versal to fluid and solid. In this study, the fluid and solid are solved
separately in space but simultaneously in time. It means that, on one Fig. 2. Fluid and solid particles near the interface.

239
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 3. Results of a water drop impact on a rigid surface using different values of for artificial viscosity, showing the effectiveness of the artificial viscosity.

Fig. 4. Results of a water drop impact on an elastic beam, showing the effectiveness of the artificial stress.

Fig. 5. Contact algorithm between the droplet and the substrate.

240
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 6. (a) Surface geometry reconstruction, and (b) illustration of boundary particles of a droplet at various stages during the impact.

241
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Table 1 Ni f
dvi Pi + Pj Wij
Material parameters for validation of surface tension model. = mj + ij + {f ni } s + {f si } f + f gi
dt f
f j =1 i j xi
−3 −1 −1 −1
f (kg.m ) µf (kg m s ) (N m )
(12)
1000.0 0.001 0.072
where Ni is the number of fluid particles located in the supporting
f

suppressed by using the artificial viscosity. Xu et al. (Xu and Yu, 2018)
proposed a technique of particle shifting to remove the tensile in-
stability in weakly compressible SPH. However, it may not be suitable
for the present simulation where tensile instability mainly exists near
the clamped end of the solid beam (as show in Fig. 4). Here, corrective
terms of artificial viscosity and artificial stress are used. In addition, a
modified scheme for approximating density (density correction) is
adopted to preserve the linear variation of density field of the fluid
domain. Combined with these corrective terms, the momentum equa-
tion (10) is rewritten.
2.3.1. Equations of fluid
The SPH discretized equation of momentum equation of the fluid is
written as:
domain. fni , f si , and f gi are the terms of contact force, surface tension
force, and gravitational force, respectively. The contact force fni is
computed by the contact algorithm. The subscript s f means that the
contact force is excerted by the solid on the fluid, and vice versa. The
contact force and surface tension force will be introduced in the fol-
lowing section.
For the density correction, the Moving Least Squares (MLS) ap-
proach (Dilts, 1999), which is an interpolation scheme on irregularly
scattered points, is used to correct the density field periodically. This
strategy had been applied successfully by Colagrossi and Landrini in
SPH simulation of interfacial flows (Colagrossi and Landrini, 2003). The
linear variation of the density field could be exactly reproduced. Be-
sides, it was also found that a smoother pressure field was obtained,
which is helpful in filtering the spurious pressure oscillation in this si-
mulation. Herein, the MLS approach is used to correct the density field

Fig. 7. (a) An initially square droplet evolves to a circular droplet, and (b) distribution of curvature of the reconstructed surface of 2D droplet.

242
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 8. (a) Time evolution of the averaged pressure inside the droplet. SPH results with three different particle resolutions are compared to the analytical solution. (b)
Pressure distributions when the droplet reaches the equilibrium state for two particle resolutions.

as and
f f s
Ni Ni Ni
1 mj Wij mj Wij
i = MLS
j Wij Vj = mj WijMLS {ri } s = vji v ji
2 xi xi (16)
j=1 j=1 (13) j=1 j j

where W jMLS is the moving-least-square kernel, for more detailed ex- where vji is the velocity difference between two particles i and j, i.e.,
pression one can refer to Ref. (Colagrossi and Landrini, 2003). Note that vji = vj vi .
Eq. (13) is used periodically, i.e. every 20 time steps. Equations (9)–(16) constitute the theoretical framework of the
present numerical model, where the fluid and the solid are modeled
2.3.2. Equations of solid based on the same numerical framework. Using the same time in-
The SPH discretized equation of momentum equation of the solid is tegration scheme, the two phases are solved simultaneously in time.
quite similar to the fluid:
Nis 2.3.3. Artificial viscosity
dvi Pi + Pj +
= mj +
i j
+ ij + Rij fijn The term ij in Eqs. (12) and (14) is the so-called artificial viscosity,
dt s j=1 i j i j which helps to reduce the numerical oscillation in the domain. Of
Wij several proposals for artificial viscosity developed so far, the most
+ {fni } f s
+ f gi widely applied is derived by Monaghan (1994):
xi (14)
c¯ij µij + µij2
where is the number of solid particles located in the supporting
Nis vij xij < 0
domain. The deviatoric stress i is calculated by integrating the rate of ij = ¯ij

0 vij x ij 0 (17)
deviatoric stress in Eq. (6) in time, using the explicit time integration
scheme. The strain rate and rotation rate tensors are calculated as:
where c¯ij = (ci + cj )/2 , ¯ij = ( i + j )/2 , ci and cj represent the sound
Ni
s
mj Wij mj Wij speed of the particles i and j, i and j represent the material density of
1
{ i }s = v ji + vji the particles i and j. , are constants, and the values should be
2 xi xi (15)
j =1 j j
chosen according to the particular application. The parameter µij is

243
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 9. Snapshots of droplet particles at t = 0.0,1.0,2.0 and 3.0 ms. The color in the figure represents the magnitude of the absolute velocity. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

expressed as: cases. The other term associated with parameter is devoted to
suppress particle interpenetration at high Mach number (Bui et al.,
hij (vij x ij )
µij = 2008), which does not affect the present simulation since the velocity is
x ij 2 + 0.01hij2 (18) small compared with the speed of sound. In this study, is set as 2.0
for solid, and 0.1 for fluid.
where hij = (hi + hj )/2 , hi and hj represent the smoothing length of the
It should be noted that artificial viscosity is the very early way of
particles i and j. The parameter vij = vi vj , where vi and vj are the
stabilizing SPH, which is otherwise unstable due to the form of the
velocity vector of the particles i and j; xij = xi xj , where xi and xj are
gradient operator and to the explicit time integration. There are several
the position vector of the particles i and j, xij = xi xj .
recent alternatives to pure artificial viscosity which provided much
The artificial viscous force is effective only if the two particles ap-
better results and fewer tunable parameters, such as delta-SPH scheme
proach each other (i.e., vij x ij < 0 ). The magnitude of the artificial
viscous force is directly related to the values of the two parameters, (Meringolo et al., 2019), SPH based on Riemanno solvers (Oger et al.,
which are and . For the value of , Monaghan (1994) selected 2016), and incompressible SPH (Xu et al., 2009), etc. In this study, the
= 0.01 for the free surface flow; Libersky et al. (Randles and artificial viscosity is adopted because of its ease of implementation for
Libersky, 1996) selected = 2.5 for solid mechanics problem. Mon- weakly compressible SPH simulation. The simulation results also show
aghan also recommended that close to 1.0 may be suitable for most that by adjusting the parameters, the artificial viscosity effectively

244
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 10. Mass center (a) postion and (b) velocity of an oscillating droplet. The mass center is the one of a quarter of fluid.

ensures the stability of the calculation, which is manifested by the fact 2.3.4. Artificial stress for solid
that the stress field and pressure field distributions become much The term Rij fijn in Eq. (14) is defined as the artificial stress, which
better. was originally proposed by Gray (Gray et al., 2001) to eliminate the
tensile instability commonly occurring in SPH solid mechanics. The

245
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 11. Initial model of droplet impact on (a) a fixed-fixed beam and (b) a cantilever beam.

Table 2 i
Simulation parameters. 2 i >0
Ri = i

Case NO. Type of substrate L (mm) H (mm) U0 (m/s) D0 (mm) 0 i 0 (22)

1 Fixed-Fixed (Sec. 4.1) 20 0.25 0.5–1.0 1.0 where is a scaling parameter, = 0.5 is adopted in this study (Gray
2 Cantilever (Sec. 4.2) 8, 12,15,20 0.25 0.5–1.0 1.0
et al., 2001). i > 0 means that it is in a tension state. The compo-
3 Cantilever (Sec. 4.3) 10 0.25 1.0 1.0
nents of stress tension i in the principle coordinate for the particle i
is calculated by the following equation:
Table 3 xx xx yy xy
= cos2 + sin2 + 2 sin cos
Material properties of various beams. i i i i i i i i
yy yy xx xy
i = i cos2 i + i sin2 i 2 sin i cos i i (23)
Type E (× 106N/m2) (kg/m3) cs (m/s) t (× 10−9s)

Fixed-Fixed (Sec. 4.1) 300 1000 0.3 500 5.0

Cantilever (Sec. 4.2) 300 1000 0.3 500 5.0 2.4. Contact algorithm
Cantilever (Sec. 4.3) 6 1000 0.3 80 30.0

A particle-to-surface contact algorithm is adopted to handle the

interaction between the fluid and the solid. The solid boundary is
basic principle of the artificial stress is to introduce a repulsive force
treated like the “master surface”, and the fluid particle in contact is
between neighbouring particles that prevents them from getting closer
considered as the “slave particle”. If a fluid particle is located inside the
when in a tension state. The complete expression is expressed as:
contact region apart from the solid boundary (like particle i in Fig. 5),
Wij n
the contact is detected and the contact force is calculated as:
Rij fijn = (R i + Rj )
s
W (dini, h) (19) (d 0 d p)
fni = 0.1 noi
where n is the exponent dependent on the smoothing kernel and Gray ( t )2 (24)
et al. (2001) suggested to choose n = 4. W (dini , h) is calculated by
where t is time step, and d 0 the threshold of contact detection, which
taking dini and h into Eq. (11). The components of Ri for particle i in
is taken as the initial distribution distance of SPH particles, i.e.,
the reference coordinates system (x, y) is calculated by the coordinate
d 0 = dini . The parameter dp represents the normal distance to the ex-
transformation of the counterparts Ri in the principal coordinates
terior boundary of the solid. The point O is the perpendicular foot of
system (x', y') as the following equation:
particle i on the solid boundary. The unit vector noi is expressed as:
Rixx = Ri xx cos2 i + Ri yy sin2 i
xi xo
Ri yy
= Ri yy
cos2 + Ri xx sin2 noi =
i i xi xo (25)
Rixy = (Ri xx Ri yy )sin i cos i (20)
where xo is the position coordinate of point O.
where i is the angle defined as: For the solid in contact, the reaction force from particle i is ex-
2 xx pressed as f ni mi , which can be decomposed into two components Fi1
i
tan i = yy and Fi2 , acting on solid partices j and j+1, respectively. Considering the
(21)
xx
force balance and moment balance, Fi1 and Fi2 can be calculated by the
i i

and Ri is calculated by the following equation: following equations:

246
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 12. Droplet impact on the fixed-fixed beam. (a) Snapshots of the 1.0 mm droplet impact on the beam (L = 20 mm, H = 0.25 mm) at U0 = 1.0 m/s. (b) Enlarged
views of impact processes at various impact velocities.

Fi1 + Fi2 = fni mi 1992). By using the techniques of color functions to track the liquid-gas
Fi1 S1 = Fi2 S2 interface, it has been successfully incorporated into various multiphase
(26)
models such as VOF (Gunjal et al., 2005), Level-Set (Zheng and Zhang,
where S1 and S2 are the distances from point O to the solid particles j 2000), or SPH (Xu et al., 2014). However, the color function may not be
and j+1. suitable for the present “single-phase droplet” model because of particle
deficiency near the boundary of free surface. Another method is pro-
2.5. Surface tension modeling for fluid posed to implement the CSF method for calculating the surface tension
force on the droplet.
In this study, the continuum surface force (CSF) method is adopted In this study, implementation of CSF method is realized through
to introduce the surface tension effect on the droplet. The CSF method explicitly reconstructing the surface curve on the boundary of the
was originally proposed for multiphase simulation (Brackbill et al., droplet. The following procedure is proposed to implement the CSF

247
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 13. Time history of the lateral diameter of the droplet D(t) and the center displacement of the plate (t ) for U0 = 0.8 m/s.

boundary particle i is calculated by the following equation:

yi + 1 yi 1 xi+1 xi 1
ni = , ,
xi +1 xi 1 xi + 1 xi 1 (27)
where the xi + 1 = (xi + 1, yi + 1) and xi 1 = (xi 1, yi 1) are the coordinate
values at boundary particles i+1 and i-1.
Then, the surface curve can be reconstructed locally (i.e., on the
surface point s) according to the surface points, using the Lagrangian
interpolation polynomial (Zhang, 2010):

P (x ) = Pj (x ),
j (28)
(x xk )
where Pj (x ) = yj k j (xj xk)
, and j is the index of surface points of the
droplet.

2.5.2. Curvature and normal vector

The curvature at an arbitrary surface point s of the surface can be
calculated as (Zhang, 2010):
Fig. 14. Comparison of the contact time between rigid and elastic surfaces,
showing the reduction of the contact time. P (x s )
s = 3/2
(1 + P 2 (xs )) (29)
method:
where P (xs ) and P (xs ) are the first and second derivatives of the
(1) Detect the SPH particle on the boundary of the droplet according to surface curve at the point s, respectively.
the algorithm developed by Dilts (2000). The normal vector is calculated by (Rafiee and Thiagarajan, 2009):
(2) Create the surface point according to the position coordinates of P (xs ), 1 if P (x s ) < 0
boundary particles. ns =
(3) Reconstruct the surface curve locally with Lagrangian interpolation P (xs ), 1 if P (x s ) > 0 (30)
polynomial according to the algorithm developed by Zhang (2010). where P (xs ) < 0 is for the convex surface, while P (xs ) > 0 is for the
(4) Compute the normal vector and curvature on the surface point. concave surface.
(5) Compute the surface tension force on the surface point and redis- Then, the surface tension force on the surface point s can be cal-
tribute to the near SPH particles. culated as below:
Fs = s ns S (31)
2.5.1. Surface curve reconstruction
The first step is to detect one-layer boundary particles of the droplet. where the subscript s denotes the surface point which is created dy-
Following the method proposed by Dilts (2000), boundary particles can namically, is the surface tension, is the curvature of the surface, and
be detected by scanning the 2h-radius (2h is the radius of the support n is the unit normal vector of the surface; S is the surface area, which
domain) circle around an SPH particle. As shown in Fig. 6 (a), if the is calculated from the distance between s and its neighbouring points.
circle of the SPH particle is not completely covered by the circles of its The surface tension force is transferred to the near SPH particles by
neighbors, this particle is labeled as a boundary particle. Otherwise, it is the following equation (Zhang, 2010):
an inner particle. Because the smoothing length in this study is con- Fs Wis
stant, the above process can ensure that the boundary particles are fs i =
ms j Wjs (32)
accurately found.
As shown in Fig. 6 (a), the surface point can be generated by shifting where f s i is the acceleration of fluid particle i caused by the surface
the position coordinates of the boundary particle by a distance of dini /2 tension at surface particle s. Wis is the value of kernel function calcu-
in the normal direction of the surface. The normal vector at the lated between i and s.

248
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 15. The droplet impacts the surface at a relatively high impact velocity.

For an arbitrary SPH particle i near the boundary, the surface ten- the diameter D0 = 1.0 mm. The initial droplet is prescribed a
sion force f si in Eq. (12) can be calculated as: divergence-free initial velocity vx = V0 r
x
0 (1 y2
r0 r ) exp ( )
r
r0
and

{f si } f =
Nis
fs i
vy = V0 r
y
0 (1 x2
r0 r ) exp ( ), where V = 0.8 m/s, r = 0.25 mm. The
r
r0 0 0

s=1 (33) droplet will oscillate as the calculation begins. For a free oscillating
droplet, the theoretical relation between the oscillating period Tc and
where Nis is the number of surface points located in the supporting D0
domain of particle i. the surface tension is Tc = f
(Hu and Adams, 2006). The spatial
12
convergence is studied for 484–1976 SPH particles in the domain of the
droplet. Convergence is observed for both the displacement and the
2.5.3. Validation of surface tension model
velocity of the center of mass of the droplet. Fig. 9 shows the snapshots
To verify the accuracy of the surface tension model, we consider two
of the droplet particles at t = 0.0, 1.0, 3.0 and 4.0 ms for a total particle
problems of droplet evolution under the action of surface tension. The
number of 1264. It shows that a relatively regular particle distribution
first problem is an initially square droplet evolving to a circular shape.
is obtained during the droplet oscillation. Fig. 10 (a) and (b) show the
The second problem is an initially circular droplet oscillation under the
position and the velocity of the center-of-mass of a quarter part of the
action of surface tension. Material parameters of the droplet are given
droplet. The oscillation period can be measured from Fig. 10 and the
in Table 1.
value is 3.23 ms which is in good agreement with the analytical value of
3.38 ms.
2.5.3.1. Evolution of an initially square droplet. For the first problem, the
water drop is initialized as the square lump with the side length
1.0 mm. The shape of the initial droplet will evolve under the effect of
2.6. A summary of modeling system
surface tension. As shown in Fig. 7 (a), after 500 steps, the sharp corner
of the square droplet has already shrunk inward, but the curvature at
For reading convenience, it would be beneficial to have a compact
the corner region is still high; after 12000 steps, the droplet evolves into
algorithm in the context of this paper. Hence, above equations are re-
a circle. From Fig. 7 (b) one can see that, the predicted result of the
organized. Accordingly, the equations of fluid system (i.e. liquid dro-
curvature on the surface point agrees well with the result in theory
plet) are organized as:
( = 1/ R ).
After several periods of oscillations, a circular shaped droplet is fi-
nally obtained under the action of surface tension. According to the { } d i
dt f
=
Ni
mv
j = 1 j ij
Wij
xi
Laplace law, the pressure inside the circular droplet should be equal to
{ }
dvi f Pi + Pj Wij
Ni
/R (environmental pressure is zero). The fluid domain is discretized dt
= j = 1 mj + ij + {f ni } s f
i j xi
into the particle numbers of 20×20, 50×50 and 100×100 for a con-
f

vergence study. The time history of the pressure inside the droplet for + {f si } f + f gi
three particle resolutions are shown in Fig. 8. It shows that the pressure
value gradually approaches the analytical solution, which demonstrates {p} f = cf2 0
f
the effectiveness of the surface tension model.
N
{f si } f = f
2.5.3.2. Droplet oscillation. For the second problem, the test of an
s=1 s i (34)
oscillating droplet described in the reference (Grenier et al., 2013) is
carried out. In this test, the water drop is initially a circular shape with and the equations of solid system (i.e. elastic beam) are organized as:

249
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 16. Snapshots of the 1.0 mm-sized droplets on cantilevers with the length of L = 8.0 mm and (b) L = 20.0 mm at U0 = 0.8 m/s.

250
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 17. Impact of the 1.0 mm-sized water droplet on the cantilever with the length of (a) L = 8 mm, (b) L = 12 mm, (c) L = 15 mm, and (d) L = 20 mm at
U0 = 0.8 m/s. Time history of the lateral diameter D(t) and the deflection (t ) is shown.

251
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 18. Theoretical description of a droplet impact on a cantilever.

where the coefficients are set as CFLs = 0.1, CFLµ = 0.1, respectively.
{ } d i
dt s
=
Ni
mv
j = 1 j ij
Wij
xi Therefore, the selected time step is determined as
t = min ( tc , ts, tµ ) .
{ }=
dvi Nis Pi + Pj i + j
dt
m
j=1 j
+ + ij According to principles presented above, an in-house code is de-
s i j i j
veloped based on the original code written in Fortran (Liu and Liu,
+ Rij fijn
Wij
+ {fni } f + f gi 2003).
xi s

{pi } s = cs2 ( i
0
s) 3. Configuration simulation
di
dt
= 2G ( i
1
2 i )+ i ri + i ri The proposed model is then used to simulate the impact of a water
s
drop impact on two types of elastic beams: the fixed-fixed beam and the
cantilever. Fig. 11 (a) and (b) show the initialized models for two types
s mj Wij mj Wij
1 Ni
{ i }s = v ji + v ji
of beams. Both of the water dropt and the beam are discretized by SPH
2 j=1 j xi j xi

1 Ni
s mj Wij mj Wij particles. The initial particle spacing is selected as dini = 0.025 mm.
{ri } s = 2 j =1
v ji vji xi As shown in Fig. 11, beams are mounted between two layers of SPH
xi
(35)
j j
particles which have the same material properties as those in the beam
To solve the equations of systems (34) and (35), the Leap-frog (LF) but they are not allowed to move. The SPH particles between the layers
algorithm is adopted because of its low memory requirement and high are allowed to move but the motion is limited by the fixed particles.
efficiency (Liu and Liu, 2003). According to LF algorithm, field vari- The initial diameter of the water drop is set as D0 = 1.0 mm. The
ables are updated as: material parameters of water are = 0.072 N/m, = 1000 kg/m3, and
µ = 0.001 N s/m2 . Various impact speeds are tested from 0.5 m/s to
d U 2 D0
n + 1/2 = n 1/2 + t 1.0 m/s, and the corresponding Weber numbers (We = 0 ) are from
dt (36)
n
3.47 to 13.9.
dv Various beam lengths (L = 8.0–20.0 mm) are used for simulation,
vn + 1/2 = vn 1/2 + t while the thickness of the beam is set as H = 0.25 mm. The simulation
dt n (37)
parameters used in the following sections are listed in Table 2, and the
d material properties of the elastic beam are listed in Table 3. If not
n + 1/2 = n 1/2 + t specifically stated, the elasticity of the beam is: Young's modulus
dt n (38)
E = 3.0×108 Pa, Poisson's ratio = 0.3, and shear modulus and bulk
x n+ 1 = xn + vn + 1/2 t (39) modulus are G = 1.15×108 Pa and K = 2.5×108 Pa, respectively.

where t is time step, n is the current time step. The time-stepping

4. Results and discussion
scheme is subject to the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy (CFL) condition for
stability, which requires that the time step should be proportional to the
In what follows, results of the water drop impact on the fixed-fixed
smallest spatial resolution:
beam and the cantilever are demonstrated. Results predicted by the
h simulation are compared with analytical solutions and experimental
tc = CFLc
c + umax (40) observations.
where the coefficient is set as CFLc = 0.1, and umax is the maximum
velocity; c = max(cf , cs ) . The magnitude of the time step t is further 4.1. Droplet impact on the fixed-fixed beam
determined based on the following two criterions:
Fig. 12 (a) shows the predicted snapshots of a droplet impact on a
1/2
h3 fixed-fixed beam (L × H = 20×0.25 mm) at U0 = 1.0 m/s. Timing is
ts = CFLs
2 (41) normalized by the contact time of the rigid surface (Tch = 3.17 ms). To
give a direct insight into the fluid-solid coupling process, the lateral
h2 diameter of the droplet and the midpoint of the beam are monitored,
tµ = CFLµ
µ (42) and are plotted as a function of time in Fig. 13.

252
X. Dong, et al.
Fig. 19. Comparison of (a) characteristic time and (b) maximum deflection of the cantilever between SPH results and analytical results.
As shown in Fig. 12 (a), in the early stage of the impact
(0.00Tch∼0.46Tch), the droplet spreads on the surface until it reaches
the maximum deformation. Subsequently, the droplet does not experi-
ence the recoiling process as it does on rigid surfaces, but bounces off
the surface in a pancake shape. Similar phenomenon was observed in
the experiment (Weisensee et al., 2016) using the same type of sub-
strate, as presented in the right diagram of Fig. 12 (a). This phenom-
enon of early lifting-off is caused by the springboard effect of the elastic
substrate, which helps to reduce the contact time. As illustrated in
Fig. 12(a), complete bounce occurs at the time 0.8Tch, which means that
the contact time reduces by more than 20%.
253
European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257
As illustrated in Fig. 13, the maximum deflection of the beam occurs
at the point 2; at the same time, the droplet also reaches the maximum
deformation at the point 1. Then, the droplet bounces off the surface.
After this, both of the droplet and the beam go to free vibrations. We
define the vibration period as the characteristic time. Fig. 13 indicates
that the characteristic time of the droplet and the beam is on the same
order of magnitude. In particular, when the droplet reaches the max-
imum diameter, the midpoint of the beam coincidently reaches to the
most downward position, then the beam begins to move upwards. This
upward motion provides an additional force for accelerating the dro-
plet, resulting in the early lifting-off the droplet.
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 20. Time history of the free end displacement of the plate (t ) for various values of U0.

Fig. 22. Impact of the droplet on the free end of the cantilever. (a)
Experimental observation ( = 0.33). (b) Numerical simulation ( = 0.29).

Fig. 21. Comparison of between SPH results and analytical results. due to the springboard effect. It means that a critical value of U0 exists
to determine the pancake-shape rebound. Just as observed by Wei-
sensee through experiments (Weisensee et al., 2016), the droplet ve-
Various impact velocities, from 0.5 to 1.0 m/s, are simulated, and
locity must exceed a critical value to trigger the springboarding effect.
some predicted results are given in Fig. 12 (b). In addition, the pre-
A natural explanation for the critical U0 is that the magnitude of
dicted contact time for each velocity is plotted in Fig. 14. Both of the
springboarding force is related to the impact velocity, that is, the larger
rigid surface and the elastic beam are considered. In general, for Weber
U0, the larger the deformation of the substrate. Because the char-
number We > 1, the water droplet undergoes elastic impact (Weisensee
acteristic time is independent of U0, the beam will provide a larger
et al., 2016), and the contact time can scale as Tch ( D03 / )1/2 (Richard
repelling force as the increase of U0. As shown in Fig. 12 (b), no pan-
et al., 2002). It indicates that the contact time of the rigid surface is
cake-shape bounce occurs for the cases of U0= 0.5 or 0.8 m/s, and
independent of the impact velocity, which is consistent with theresult
droplets recoil inwards from the maximum deformation and rebound in
shown in Fig. 14 for the rigid surface. However, compared to the rigid
a pear shape, which are similar to the rigid surface.
surface, the contact time is slightly reduced by using the elastic surface
When the impact velocity increases, more kinetic energy is
if U0 < 1.0 m/s, and significant decrease is observed for U0= 1.0 m/s

254
X. Dong, et al.
Fig. 23. Impact of the water droplet on the middle of the cantilever. (a)
Experimental observation. (b) Numerical simulation.
consumed for the droplet deformation compared with the droplet
bouncing. Thus, the complete rebound is more possible with low Weber
numbers (i.e. We < 40), while with higher Weber numbers, the partial
rebound or even satellite phenomenon due to strong deformation could
be observed. Fig. 15 shows the result of a water drop impacting a rigid
surface at a relatively high velocity (2.0 m/s), corresponding to
We = 55.5. It is quite evident that in Fig. 15, there is no fragmentation
while in reality many satellite drops may occur. It should be mentioned
that, the current model somehow inhibits the liquid fragmentation, and
it works very well for the presented configurations, as the Weber
number is low enough that a full rebound can occur.
4.2. Droplet impact on the cantilever
In this section, the SPH model is used to simulate the impact of a
water drop on cantilevers with various lengths (L = 8, 12, 15, and
20 mm). Various impact velocities U0 = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 m/s
are simulated. The predicted snapshots and time histories of D(t) and
(t ) are shown in Figs. 16 and 17, respectively. For the problems con-
cerned in this section, the characteristic time of the droplet is com-
parable to that of the cantilever, and the stiffness of the cantilever beam
is large enough to effectively repel the droplet.
For the first case, L = 8.0 mm and U0 = 0.8 m/s, as shown in
Fig. 16(a), the droplet reaches the maximum deformation at about
1.44 ms, while the cantilever achieves the maximum deflection at about
t = 1.3 ms (see Fig. 17(a)). After the droplet rebounds, the cantilever
goes to free vibration. The vibration can be described by the first-model
theoretical vibration frequency (Falahaty et al., 2018):
EI
0 = 3.52
Mb L3 (1 2)
(43)
where Mb , I, L are the mass, moment of inertia, length of the cantilever,
is Poisson's ratio. Hence, the characteristic time can be theoretically
calculated as:
0 =2 / 0 (44)
where 0 is the characteristic time of cantilever. The predicted char-
acteristic times of four cantilevers (L = 8, 12, 15, and 20 mm) can be
measured from Fig. 17(a), (b), (c), and (d), and are compared with
theoretical results in Fig. 19(a). It can be seen that the predicted
characteristic time is in good agreement with the theoretical values.
255
European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257
Considering the momentum transfer from the impacting droplet to
the cantilever during the early stage of impact (i.e. 0/4 ), as illustrated
in Fig. 18, the following equation can be obtained (Gart et al., 2015):
4 max Mb
mU0 = md +
0 2 (45)
where md is the mass of the droplet, max is the maximum deflection of
the cantilever caused by the droplet impact. max is theoretically ex-
pressed as:
0 mU0
max =
(
4 md +
Mb
2 ) (46)
Note that Eq. (45) is derived based on the assumption that the
droplet loses its kinetic energy when the cantilever reaches the max-
imum deflection. Coincidentally, the impact shown in Fig. 16(a) is very
much in line with this situation: when the droplet reaches the maximum
deformation, the cantilever (L = 8.0 mm) reaches the maximum de-
flection. For the same cantilever, as shown in Fig. 19(b), the predicted
values of max are in good agreement with the theoretical results cal-
culated by Eq. (46) for various U0. However, this is not the case for the
cantilever of L = 15 mm; as illustrated in Fig. 19(b), the predicted result
is generallylarger than the theoretical result.
Let us focus on the droplet impacting the 20.0 mm-length cantilever,
as shown in Fig. 16(b). The impact process can be divided into three
stages: in the first stage (from 0.0 to 1.4 ms), the droplet spreads on the
surface and reaches the maximum diameter; in the second stage (from
1.4 to 3.1 ms), the droplet recoils and bounces off the surface; and in the
third stage (from 3.1 to 4.8 ms), the cantilever continues to move
downwards until reaching the maximum deflection. Analyzing together
with Fig. 17(d), we can know that the characteristic time of the droplet
is less than that of the cantilever beam. It shows that the cantilever still
has a downward velocity when the droplet bounces off the surface
(3.1 ms), which breaks the assumed condition for deriving Eq. (45).
Fig. 20 shows the vibrating curves of the cantilever (L = 8.0 mm)
corresponding to the droplet at various impact velocities. As can be
seen from the figure, the vibration frequency is independent of the
droplet velocity. The predicted maximum deflection of the cantilever
increases linearly with the droplet impact velocity.
4.3. Droplet impact on the low-stiffness cantilever
This section will demonstrate the ability of the SPH model to si-
mulate the large deformation of the cantilever caused by the droplet
impact. Here, the dimensionless parameter χ is introduced to describe
the deformation degree of the cantilever:
= max
L (47)
where max is the maximum deflection calculated by Eq. (46).
As discussed in Sec. 4.2, the values of χ are all less than 0.1, as
shown in Fig. 21. Hence, it can be viewed as the small deformation
problem. The stiffness of the cantilever is large enough, so it can repel
droplets effectively; while for the low-stiffness cantilever, such as plant
leaves, droplets may fall off the surface and cause large deformation,
resulting in a large value of .
Fig. 22 shows the snapshots of droplet impact on a low-stiffness
cantilever. Both of the experimental and numerical results are given in
the figure. In the simulation, the 1.0 mm-size droplet is simulated to
impact on the cantilever (L × H = 8×0.25 mm) at U0 = 1.0 m/s. The
material parameters of the cantilever are given in Table 3. The char-
acteristic time of the cantilever is calculated as 30.5 ms, and the cor-
responding is calculated as 0.294.
In the experiment, parameters are configured as: U0 = 1.48 m/s,
and D0 = 2.6 mm. The experimental cantilever is made of a polyester
piece with the size of 33.0×10.0×0.05 mm. The surface of the cantilever
X. Dong, et al. European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257

Fig. 24. Illustration the difference between rigid-ball impact and waterdrop impact. (a) Comparison of dynamic impact process (U0 = 0.8 m/s, D0 = 1.0 mm,
L = 8.0 mm, E = 3.0e8MPa), and (b) time history of the free end displacement of the plate (t ) .

is coated with nanoparticle spray by using the commercial spray
Neverwet. High speed camera is used to record the impact process.
Although the experimental parameters and simulation parameters are
not exactly the same, the values of (in the experiment, = 0.33) are
similar. Therefore, a qualitative comparison can be made between ex-
perimental observation and simulation. As shown in Fig. 22, the impact
of the droplet causes the large deformation of the cantilever, and the
droplet roll off the highly deformed surface. The predicted behaviors
are qualitatively consistent with the experimental observations. Fur-
ther, we simulate the droplet impacting on the middle of the cantilever,
as shown in Fig. 23. This phenomenon is also observable in nature, such
asthe raindrop impact on the plant leave. The experimental observation
is given for qualitative comparison. Because of the difference in
characteristic time, the deformation of the cantilever lags behind the
rebound of the droplet. When the droplet bounces, the deformation of
the free end of the cantilever is not obvious. After this, the cantilever
vibrates under the effect of inertia, and the middle and free end of the
beam are in anti-phase vibration.
4.4. Comparison between rigid-ball and liquid droplet
In this section, the dynamic process of a rigid-ball and a water drop
impact on the elastic beam is simulated respectively. The difference
between rigid-ball impact and droplet impact is compared. Both the
rigid ball and the water droplet have a diameter of 1.0 mm, an impact
velocity of 0.8 m/s, and the material density of 1000 kg/m3. The length

256
X. Dong, et al.
(L) and thickness (H) of the beam are 8 mm and 0.25 mm respectively.
The beam material has an elasticity modulus of 3 × 108 Pa and a
Poisson's ratio of 0.3.
The predicted results are shown in Fig. 24 (a) and (b). It can be seen
that both the rigid-ball and the droplet can bounce from the deformed
beam. The rigid-ball leaves the beam surface earlier than the droplet.
Fig. 24(b) compares the time history of the displacement of the free end
of the beam. It shows that the maximum deflection ( max ) caused by the
rigid-ball impact is larger than that caused by the droplet. For the rigid-
beam system, most of the initial kinetic energy of the rigid-ball converts
to the strain energy of the beam. However, for the droplet-beam system,
part of the kinetic energy is stored as the surface energy of the droplet
due to the change in surface area during the spreading. This kinetic-to-
surface converting mechanism suppress the ability of the droplet on
deforming the elastic beam.
5. Summary
In conclusion, for the current study, we have developed a numerical
model for simulation droplet impact on elastic beams based on the
smoothed particle hydrodynamics method. The model has a good ap-
plicability to droplet impact dynamics dominated by inertia, surface
tension, and elasticity. The robustness is demonstrated by simulating
the beam vibration lasting for several vibrating periods after the droplet
bounces. Predictions of the characteristic time and the maximum de-
formation of the cantilever caused by droplet impact are consistent with
the theoretical results. Interesting phenomena including the spring-
board effect and droplet impact on soft cantilevers are successfully re-
produced by the model.
However, for the results presented in this paper, it is only applicable
to the problems dominated by droplet inertial and elasticity, without
considering the interface effect, such as the dynamic contact line, which
will be solved in future studies. We expect these analyses may be
beneficial to engineering new materials and new devices in such areas
as fabrics, agriculture, petroleum, and micro/nano technology.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (11672335), the Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities of China (17CX06018), Key Research and
Development Project in Shandong Province (2017GGX20117). This
project was also supported by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
(2017M622307), Shandong Natural Science Foundation
[ZR201709210320] and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities [18CX02153A].
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2019.01.026.
References
Amini, Y., Emdad, H., Farid, M., 2011. A new model to solve fluid-hypo-elastic solid
interaction using the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method. Eur. J. Mech.
B Fluid 30 (2), 184–194.
Antoci, C., Gallati, M., Sibilla, S., 2007. Numerical simulation of fluid–structure inter-
action by SPH. Comput. Struct. 85 (11‒14), 879–890.
Brackbill, J.U., Kothe, D.B., Zemach, C., 1992. A continuum method for modeling surface
tension. J. Comput. Phys. 100 (2), 335–354.
Bui, H.H., Fukagawa, R., Sako, K., Ohno, S., 2008. Lagrangian meshfree particles method
(SPH) for large deformation and failure flows of geomaterial using elastic–plastic soil
constitutive model. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 32 (12), 1537–1570.
Colagrossi, A., Landrini, M., 2003. Numerical simulation of interfacial flows by smoothed
particle hydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 191 (2), 448–475.
Dilts, G.A., 1999. Moving-least-squares-particle hydrodynamics-I. Consistency and sta-
bility. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 44 (8), 1115–1155.
Dilts, G.A., 2000. Moving least-squares particle hydrodynamics II: conservation and
boundaries. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 48 (10), 1503–1524.
257
European Journal of Mechanics / A Solids 75 (2019) 237–257
Dressaire, E., Sauret, A., Boulogne, F., Stone, H.A., 2016. Drop impact on a flexible fiber.
Soft Matter 12 (1), 200–208.
Falahaty, H., Khayyer, A., Gotoh, H., 2018. Enhanced particle method with stress point
integration for simulation of incompressible fluid-nonlinear elastic structure inter-
action. J. Fluid Struct. 81, 325–360 A Khayyer, H Gotoh, H Falahaty, Y Shimizu
(2018).
Gart, S., Mates, J.E., Megaridis, C.M., Jung, S., 2015. Droplet impacting a cantilever: a
leaf-raindrop system. Phys. Rev. Appl. 3 (4), 044019.
Gray, J.P., Monaghan, J.J., Swift, R.P., 2001. SPH elastic dynamics. Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng. 190 (49–50), 6641–6662.
Grenier, N., Le Touzé, D., Colagrossi, A., Antuono, M., Colicchio, G., 2013. Viscous bubbly
flows simulation with an interface SPH model. Ocean Eng. 69, 88–102.
Guigon, R., Chaillout, J.J., Jager, T., Despesse, G., 2008. Harvesting raindrop energy:
experimental study. Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (1), 015039.
Gunjal, P.R., Ranade, V.V., Chaudhari, R.V., 2005. Dynamics of drop impact on solid
surface: experiments and VOF simulations. AIChE J. 51 (1), 59–78.
Hirschler, M., Oger, G., Nieken, U., Le Touzé, D., 2017. Modeling of droplet collisions
using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 95, 175–187.
Hu, X.Y., Adams, N.A., 2006. A multi-phase SPH method for macroscopic and mesoscopic
flows. J. Comput. Phys. 213 (2), 844–861.
Khayyer, A., Gotoh, H., Falahaty, H., et al., November 2018. An enhanced ISPH-SPH
coupled method for simulation of incompressible fluid-elastic structure interactions.
Comput. Phys. Commun. 232, 139–164.
Lee, T., Liu, L., 2010. Lattice Boltzmann simulations of micron-scale drop impact on dry
surfaces. J. Comput. Phys. 229 (20), 8045–8063.
Li, Q., Cai, T.M., He, G.Q., Hu, C.B., 2006. Droplet collision and coalescence model. Appl.
Math. Mech. 27 (1), 67–73.
Liu, G.R., Liu, M.B., 2003. Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: a Meshfree Particle
Method. World Scientific.
Liu, M.B., Liu, G.R., 2010. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH): an overview and
recent developments. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 17 (1), 25–76.
Liu, M.B., Chang, J.Z., Liu, H.T., Su, T.X., 2011. Modeling of contact angles and wetting
effects with particle methods. Int. J. Comput. Methods 8 (04), 637–651.
Liu, X., Xu, H., Shao, S., Lin, P., 2013. An improved incompressible SPH model for si-
mulation of wave–structure interaction. Comput. Fluid 71, 113–123.
Meringolo, D.D., Marrone, S., Colagrossi, A., et al., 2019. A dynamic δ-SPH model: how to
get rid of diffusive parameter tuning. Comput. Fluid 179, 334–355.
Monaghan, J.J., 1994. Simulating free surface flows with SPH. J. Comput. Phys. 110 (2),
399–406.
Morris, J.P., 2000. Simulating surface tension with smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Int.
J. Numer. Methods Fluids 33 (3), 333–353.
Nugent, S., Posch, H.A., 2000. Liquid drops and surface tension with smoothed particle
applied mechanics. Phys. Rev. 62 (4), 4968.
Oger, G., Marrone, S., Le Touzé, D., et al., 2016. SPH accuracy improvement through the
combination of a quasi-Lagrangian shifting transport velocity and consistent ALE
formalisms. J. Comput. Phys. 313, 76–98.
Panciroli, R., Abrate, S., Minak, G., Zucchelli, A., 2012. Hydroelasticity in water-entry
problems: comparison between experimental and SPH results. Compos. Struct. 94 (2),
532–539.
Rafiee, A., Thiagarajan, K.P., 2009. An SPH projection method for simulating fluid-hy-
poelastic structure interaction. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 198 (33–36),
2785–2795.
Randles, P.W., Libersky, L.D., 1996. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: some recent
improvements and applications. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 139 (1–4),
375–408.
Richard, D., Clanet, C., Quéré, D., 2002. Surface phenomena: contact time of a bouncing
drop. Nature 417 (6891), 811.
Shigorina, E., Kordilla, J., Tartakovsky, A.M., 2017. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics
study of the roughness effect on contact angle and droplet flow. Phys. Rev. 96 (3),
033115.
Smith, D.B., Askew, S.D., Morris, W.H., Shaw, D.R., Boyette, M., 2000. Droplet size and
leaf morphology effects on pesticide spray deposition. Trans. ASAE 43 (2), 255.
Soto, D., De Lariviere, A.B., Boutillon, X., Clanet, C., Quéré, D., 2014. The force of im-
pacting rain. Soft Matter 10 (27), 4929–4934.
van Dam, D.B., Le Clerc, C., 2004. Experimental study of the impact of an ink-jet printed
droplet on a solid substrate. Phys. Fluids 16 (9), 3403–3414.
Vasileiou, T., Gerber, J., Prautzsch, J., Schutzius, T.M., Poulikakos, D., 2016.
Superhydrophobicity enhancement through substrate flexibility. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. Unit. States Am. 113 (47), 13307–13312.
Vasileiou, T., Schutzius, T.M., Poulikakos, D., 2017. Imparting icephobicity with substrate
flexibility. Langmuir 33 (27), 6708–6718.
Weisensee, P.B., Tian, J., Miljkovic, N., King, W.P., 2016. Water droplet impact on elastic
superhydrophobic surfaces. Sci. Rep. 6, 30328.
Xu, X., Yu, P., 2018. A technique to remove the tensile instability in weakly compressible
SPH. Comput. Mech. 1‒28.
Xu, R., Stansby, P., Laurence, D., 2009. Accuracy and stability in incompressible SPH
(ISPH) based on the projection method and a new approach. J. Comput. Phys. 228
(18), 6703–6725.
Xu, X., Ouyang, J., Jiang, T., Li, Q., 2014. Numerical analysis of the impact of two dro-
plets with a liquid film using an incompressible SPH method. J. Eng. Math. 85 (1),
35–53.
Yarin, A.L., 2006. Drop impact dynamics: splashing, spreading, receding, bouncing. Annu.
Rev. Fluid Mech. 38, 159–192.
Zhang, M., 2010. Simulation of surface tension in 2D and 3D with smoothed particle
hydrodynamics method. J. Comput. Phys. 229 (19), 7238–7259.
Zhang, A., Sun, P., Ming, F., 2015. An SPH modeling of bubble rising and coalescing in
three dimensions. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 294, 189–209.
Zheng, L.L., Zhang, H., 2000. An adaptive level set method for moving-boundary pro-
blems: application to droplet spreading and solidification. Numer. Heat Tran. Part B:
Fundamentals 37 (4), 437–454.