Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Numerical simulations of drop impact and spreading on horizontal and

inclined surfaces
Siddhartha F. Lunkad, Vivek V. Buwa ∗ , K.D.P. Nigam
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, New Delhi 110 016, India

Received 25 April 2007; received in revised form 3 July 2007; accepted 9 July 2007
Available online 25 July 2007

Abstract
The phenomenon of drop spreading is important to several process engineering applications. In the present work, numerical simulations of
the dynamics of drop impact and spreading on horizontal and inclined surfaces were carried out using the volume of fluid (VOF) method.
For the horizontal surfaces, the dynamics of impact and spreading of glycerin drops on wax and glass surfaces was investigated for which
the experimental measurements were available [Šikalo, Š., Tropea, C., Ganic, E.N., 2005a. Dynamic wetting angle of a spreading droplet.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 29, 795–802; Šikalo, Š., Tropea, C., Ganic, E.N., 2005b. Impact of droplets onto inclined surfaces.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 286, 661–669]. The influence of surface wetting characteristics was investigated by using static
contact angle (SCA) and dynamic contact angle (DCA) models. The dynamics of drop impact and spreading on inclined surfaces and the
different regimes of drop impact and spreading process were also investigated. In particular, the effects of surface inclination, surface wetting
characteristics, liquid properties and impact velocity on the dynamics of drop impact and spreading were investigated numerically and the
results were verified experimentally. It was found that the SCA model can predict the drop impact and spreading behavior in quantitative
agreement with the experiments for less wettable surfaces (SCA > 90◦ ). However, for more wettable surfaces (SCA < 90◦ ), the DCA observed
at initial contact times were order of magnitude higher than SCA values and therefore the DCA model is needed for the accurate prediction
of the spreading behavior.
䉷 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Drop; Dynamic simulation; Drop impact and spreading; Volume of fluid method; Computational fluid dynamics

1. Introduction et al., 1996; Bussmann et al., 1999, 2000; Kang and Lee, 2000;
Fukai et al., 2000; Gunjal et al., 2005, Šikalo et al., 2005a–d).
Many engineering and technology applications involve flow For many years, the dynamics of drop impact and spreading
of liquids over solid surfaces, for example in trickle bed reac- has been a challenging problem for physicists and engineers.
tors, structured reactors and monoliths, packed beds, surface The important factors which govern the drop dynamics on a
coatings, printing and many more. In these reactors/processes, solid surface are the liquid properties (density, surface tension
the impact and spreading of liquid droplets on solid surfaces and viscosity), the surface characteristics (contact angle and
play a crucial role. For example, a fraction of the total exter- roughness), the drop impact velocity and the surface inclina-
nal catalyst area wetted by flowing droplets governs the cata- tion. The experimental investigations of Šikalo et al. (2005a–c)
lyst efficiency and therefore the process performance. Owing to with liquids of varying surface tension and viscosity (e.g., iso-
its importance in various applications, the phenomena of drop propanol, water and glycerin) showed that the drop volume,
impact and spreading over horizontal and inclined surfaces re- the surface inclination and impact velocity have a significant
ceived a substantial attention in the literature (Pasandideh-Fard effect on the drop dynamics and the regimes of drop impact.
Fig. 1 shows the regimes of drop the impact observed experi-
mentally by Šikalo et al. (2005b) viz. (a) splash, (b) spreading,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 11 26591027; fax: +91 11 26581120. (c) spreading and sliding, (d) partial rebound, (e) rebound and
E-mail address: [email protected] (V.V. Buwa). (f) deformation. Šikalo et al. (2005a–c) attempted to quantify
0009-2509/$ - see front matter 䉷 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2007.07.036
 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224 7215

Fig. 1. Experimentally observed regimes of the drop impact and spreading on inclined surfaces (Šikalo et al., 2005b, reproduced with permission). (a) Splash
(the 3.3 mm isopropanol drop impacting on the glass surface with the inclination of 45◦ and with the impact velocity of 2.098 m/s, We = 544); (b) spreading
(the 2.72 mm water drop impacting on the glass surface with the inclination of 10◦ and with the impact velocity of 3.25 m/s, We = 391); (c) spreading and
sliding (the 2.72 mm water drop impacting on the wax surface with the inclination of 10◦ and with the impact velocity of 3.25 m/s, We = 391); (d) partial
rebound (the 2.45 mm glycerin drop impacting on the glass surface with the inclination of 9◦ and with the impact velocity of 1.0361 m/s, We = 51); (e) rebound
(the 2.45 mm glycerin drop impacting on the glass surface with the inclination of 8◦ and with the impact velocity of 1.0361 m/s, We = 51) and (f) deformation
(the 1.8 mm isopropanol drop impacting on the glass surface with the inclination of 8◦ and with the impact velocity of 1.63 m/s, We = 179).

the drop dynamics based on the Weber number (We) (ratio of Doolen, 1995; Nourgaliev et al., 2003) and the volume of fluid
inertial force to surface tension force), the contact angle and the (VOF) method (Hirt and Nichols, 1981). However, the VOF
surface inclination. Fukai et al. (2000) and Kang and Lee (2000) method is more suitable for the simulation of drop spreading
investigated the dependence of advancing and receding contact because of its inherent mass conservation property, its suitabil-
angles on the wall temperature and the contact line velocity ex- ity for problems where large surface topology changes occur
perimentally. Sedev et al. (1993) carried out an experimental and reduced computational costs. However, it is less accurate
study with the droplets of octane, dodecane, and hexadecane in interface calculations than the other methods like the level
and reported the dependence of the DCA on the contact line ve- set or the front tracking. In spite of this limitation, it is still
locity, the surface roughness and the time of solid–liquid con- the most preferred method for the computations of drop impact
tact. In an experimental and numerical investigation by Fukai and spreading where strong topological changes of interfaces
et al. (1995) for surfaces of different wettabilities, it was seen occur (Fukai et al., 1995; Bussmann et al., 1999; Gunjal et al.,
that the effect of impact velocity on the droplet spreading was 2005; Šikalo et al., 2005d).
more pronounced when the wetting was limited. The theoret- Fukai et al. (1995) investigated the effect of the surface wet-
ical model satisfactorily captured the deformation of impact- tability on the spreading behavior of a drop. They observed that
ing droplet in spreading as well as recoiling and oscillation the impact velocity greatly influences the droplet spreading be-
phases. Reznik and Yarin (2002) reported a theoretical study havior. The incorporation of advancing and receding angles in
based on a analytical method for a viscous liquid drop spreading the numerical model with adaptive mesh refinement improved
over a horizontal surface with an impact velocity in the range their predictions. Pasandideh-Fard et al. (2002) studied the
of 0.1–0.9 m/s. Mundo et al. (1995) reported an experimental three-dimensional solidification of a molten drop on horizontal
study of the effect of the wall roughness on the drop dynamics and inclined surfaces with an interface tracking algorithm and
in the splashing regime. Pasandideh-Fard et al. (1996) investi- a continuum surface force (CSF) model. Gunjal et al. (2005)
gated the effects of capillary forces on the drop spreading over carried out an experimental and VOF based numerical study
solid surfaces. of the drop impact over horizontal surfaces. Their predictions
Besides the experimental investigations discussed above, sev- successfully captured the spreading, splashing, rebounding and
eral numerical studies on the dynamics of liquid droplet spread- bouncing regimes of the drop dynamics over horizontal surfaces
ing over solid surfaces have been reported in the literature of different wettabilities. Most of the numerical simulations
(Fukai et al., 1995; Bussmann et al., 1999; Pasandideh-Fard of drop spreading discussed above were carried for horizontal
et al., 2002; Gunjal et al., 2005, Šikalo et al., 2005d). Different surfaces and using the static contact angle (SCA) model. How-
numerical methods are available for computations of flows with ever, the predictive capability of the numerical methods to sim-
moving interfaces, for example, the level set method (Osher ulate the dynamics of drop impact and spreading on inclined
and Sethian, 1988; Sussman and Osher, 1994), the front track- surfaces and the different regimes observed during the impact
ing method (Unverdi and Tryggvason, 1992; Tryggvason et al., and spreading process is not well investigated.
2001) and the lattice-Boltzmann method (Gunstensen et al., Šikalo et al. (2005d) reported a numerical study on the DCA
1991; Grunau et al., 1993, Shan and Chen, 1993; Shan and model for drops impacting over flat surfaces. Using the VOF
7216 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224

method, Bussmann et al. (1999) successfully simulated the drop control volume as the fraction of the qth phase inside a cell as
spreading on an inclined surface by accounting the time varia- 
0 if the cell is empty (of qth phase),
tion of the DCA and the contact line velocities. They investi- q = (1)
gated the impact and spreading of a 2 mm water droplet on a 1 if the cell is full (of qth phase).
45◦ inclined steel surface. The experimentally measured DCAs If 0 < q , < 1, the cell contains the interface between the qth
were implemented as a wall boundary condition. The predicted phase and the other phase(s). Depending upon local values of
evolution of drop shapes was in a remarkably good agree- volume fraction, a single set of Navier–Stokes equations for
ment with the experimental observations. Recently, Afkhami Newtonian fluid under laminar flow conditions were solved in
and Bussmann (2006) extended the work of Bussmann et al. the entire computational domain as
(1999) by incorporating the variation of drop height into the
VOF algorithm and discussed the effect of different implemen- j
() + ∇ · (
v ) = 0, (2)
tations of the contact angle and the contact line velocity on the jt
predictions of drop spreading. However, it should be noted that j
the predictions of both Bussmann et al. (1999) and Afkhami v ) + ∇ · (
( v v)
jt
and Bussmann (2006) were validated experimentally only for a
single experimental case of the 2 mm water droplet impacting g + F ,
= −∇P + ∇ · [(∇ v + (∇ v)T )] +  (3)
on the 45◦ inclined steel surface. where v is velocity vector, P is pressure, F is surface tension
Though it is understood that the experimental data on the force per unit volume, g is the gravitational acceleration,  is the
time variation of the contact angle is always not easy to obtain density (as defined by Eq. (4)) and  is the viscosity (as defined
and appropriate DCA models are lacking, the first step towards by Eq. (5)). Depending upon volume fraction values, the flow
improving the predictive capabilities of the numerical methods variables and the fluid properties in any given cell are either
would be to implement the experimentally measured time vari- purely representative of one of the phases, or representative of
ation of the contact angles (advancing, A and receding, R ) a mixture of the phases. Based on the local value of q , the
in numerical simulations (Bussmann et al., 1999). In order to appropriate fluid properties and flow variables were assigned to
progress further, it is imperative to understand the predictive each control volume within the domain. In a two-phase system,
capabilities to simulate the drop impact and spreading on hori- for example, if the phases are represented by the subscripts 1
zontal surfaces using both SCA and DCA models. In particular, and 2 and the volume fraction of the phase 2 is known, the
it will be worthwhile to simulate the drop impact and spreading density and the viscosity in each cell are given as follows:
behavior for the different regimes that are observed for differ-
ent surface inclinations, surface wetting characteristics, liquid  = 2 2 + (1 − 2 )1 , (4)
properties and drop impact velocities (see Fig. 1) and validate
the predictions.  = 2 2 + (1 − 2 )1 . (5)
In the present work, we have carried out the numerical In the VOF model, the motion of a moving interface is com-
investigations of drop impact and spreading on horizontal puted by solving an advection equation for the volume fraction
and inclined surfaces. The experimental data reported by of the qth phase (secondary-phase):
Šikalo et al. (2005a,b) were used to validate the predictions.
The numerical simulations were carried out by using the jq
+ v · ∇q = 0. (6)
VOF method and using the commercial flow solver (Flu- jt
ent 6.3). The simulations of glycerin drop impacting on the
The volume fraction for the primary-phase is obtained from the
horizontal surfaces of wax and glass surfaces for the im-
following equation:
pact velocity of 1.0361 m/s (corresponding to We = 51) were
performed using SCA and DCA models and the predictions 
n

were validated using the measured spread factors (of Šikalo q = 1. (7)
et al., 2005a,b). The simulations of the liquid drop (water, glyc- q=1
erin and iso-propanol) impact and spreading on inclined sur- The surface tension model incorporated in FLUENT is the CSF
faces (wax and glass surfaces with 10–45◦ inclinations) were model proposed by Brackbill et al. (1992). With this model,
carried out using the SCA model for different impact veloci- the contribution of the surface tension force to the VOF calcu-
ties (corresponding Weber numbers in the range of 51–544). lation results in a source term in the momentum equation and
The experimental images and the measured spread factors (of is modeled as
Šikalo et al., 2005a,b) were used to validate the predictions.
∇2
F =  1 , (8)
2. Computational model 2 (1 + 2 )

where  is the surface tension coefficient and  is the surface

2.1. The VOF method
curvature calculated as (Brackbill et al., 1992).
  
In a computational domain under consideration, the partic- 1 n
 = −(∇ · n̂) = · ∇ |n| − (∇ · n) , (9)
ular fluid phase is defined by the volume fraction (q ) in a |n| |n|
 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224 7217

θR Table 1
Liquid properties (Šikalo et al., 2005b)
θA
φ
Liquid Density () Viscosity () Surface tension
Side View
(kg m−3 ) (mPa s) () (N m−1 )
Pressure Inlet
Water 996 1.0 0.073
W
Glycerin 1220 116.0 0.063
Isopropanol 786 2.4 0.021
H

Wall While a no-slip boundary condition is imposed for the fluid

L velocities at the solid surface (other boundary conditions dis-
cussed separately in Section 2.2), the moving contact line feels
a slip. In order to avoid stress singularities at the contact point,
φ often a Navier slip condition (uslip = (ju/jz)), where  is
Pressure Inlet
the slip length, is used (Renardy et al., 2001; Spelt, 2005). In
most of the applications, this slip length is expected to be much
smaller than the mesh size used in numerical computations
Pressure (Renardy et al., 2001). The available computational resources
Inlet
do not allow the mesh size to be refined in such a way that the
true slip length is captured correctly. In the present work, there-
fore, no explicit slip length was imposed. However, it should
Refinement
be noted that the algorithm itself introduces the implicit slip
Wall length of the order of the grid spacing (see Renardy et al., 2001
for further details).
The model equations given above were solved using the
commercial flow solver Fluent 6.3. The spatial derivatives in
Eqs. (2), (3) and (6) were discretized using the QUICK scheme
Fig. 2. Solution domain, boundary conditions and grid used in the simulations (Leonard, 1979) while the temporal derivatives were discretized
of drop impact on an inclined surface. using a first-order implicit method. The pressure implicit with
splitting of operator (PISO) scheme was used for the pressure
where velocity coupling in the momentum equation (Issa, 1985).
In the beginning of a simulation, a spherical drop was patched
n = ∇q . (10) at the corresponding position in the computational domain
(liquid-phase volume fraction, q , was set to unity). This patch
The control-volume formulation requires convection and diffu- was initialized with an impact velocity in vertically downward
sion fluxes through the control-volume faces to be computed direction (at time t = 0). A time step varying from 0.5 × 10−7
and balanced with source terms within the control volume it- to 1 × 10−6 s was used and 20–30 internal iterations per time
self. For the calculation of face fluxes in the VOF algorithm, step were carried out, with which the normalized residuals were
the geometric reconstruction scheme (Youngs, 1982) based on less than 10−4 .
the piecewise linear approach was used (see Fluent 6.3 Users
Guide, 1996 for further details; Rider and Kothe, 1998). 2.2. Solution domain, boundary conditions and grid
The numerical treatment of a moving three-phase contact
line needs a further discussion. For fluids exhibiting a non- Numerical simulations were carried out using three-
zero contact angle, the presence of wall also affects the surface dimensional rectangular boxes of different sizes (horizontal or
normal and therefore wall adhesion forces were included in with inclinations of 10–45◦ ) with a Cartesian grid (see Fig. 2).
the present work. The wall adhesion was modeled in a manner The extents of the solution domain (L, H, W) in the x-, y- and
similar to that of the surface tension in the case of a gas–liquid z-direction were decided based on drop diameter, impact ve-
interface (Brackbill et al., 1992), except that the unit normal n locity, liquid properties and surface wettability data. Typically,
in this case was evaluated using the contact angle w as follows: the solution domain for simulation of the 3.3 mm diameter
n̂ = n̂w cos(w ) + tˆw sin(w ), (11) isopropanol drop impacting on the 45◦ inclined glass surface
(SCA = 0◦ ) was 15 mm × 15 mm × 6 mm and for simulat-
where n̂w and tˆw are the unit vectors normal and tangential to ing the 2.45 mm glycerin drop impact on the horizontal wax
the wall, respectively (which are directed into fluid and wall, surface (SCA = 93.5◦ ), the domain size was 10 mm × 10 mm
respectively). The contact angle is the angle between the wall × 5 mm. Numerical simulations of drop with diameters of
and tangent to the interface at the wall as shown in Fig. 2. The the range of 1.8–3.3 mm and impact velocities in the range of
contact angle (w ), static or dynamic was specified from the 1–3.25 m/s (surface inclinations of 10–45◦ ) were investigated
experimentally measured values. in the present work.
7218 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224

Fig. 3. Comparison of the evolution of drop shapes obtained using the (a) SCA and (b) DCA based simulations for the 2.45 mm glycerin drop impacting at
1.0361 m/s (We = 51) on the horizontal wax surface (SCA = 93.5◦ , DCA as shown in Fig. 4).

The no slip boundary condition was specified at the wall 3.2

(bottom face) and all the remaining faces were defined as the

DCA (radian), d/D, h/D

pressure inlets (as shown in Fig. 2). For the horizontal surface, 2.4

the DCA approach uses the experimental time variation of the

contact angle data reported by Šikalo et al. (2005a) (shown in 1.6

Figs. 4 and 6). The user defined functions were used to im-
plement the DCA as the wall boundary condition. Bussmann 0.8

et al. (1999) studied the effect of the grid resolution using 10,
16 and 25 cells per radius (cpr) of the drop. They reported 0
0.01 0.1 1 10
that the grid resolution of 10 cpr was sufficient to capture ac-
Dimensionless Time (t* = tu/D)
curately the dynamics of drop spreading on inclined surfaces DCA-Experimental d/D-Experimental
and further refinement in the grid resolution did not alter the (Sikalo et al., 2005a) (Sikalo et al., 2005a)
d/D-Simulated (SCA) d/D-Simulated (DCA)
predictions significantly. In the present work, the effect of grid h/D-Simulated (SCA) h/D-Simulated (DCA)
resolution was investigated using the grid resolutions of 6, 10
and 14 cpr. For the grid resolutions of 10 cpr and above, the Fig. 4. Comparison of the experimental and the numerical spread factors
predicted spread factors and the apex height variation were al- for the 2.45 mm glycerin drop impacting at 1.0361 m/s (We = 51) on the
most independent of the grid resolution (Results are discussed horizontal wax surface (SCA = 93.5◦ , DCA as shown in the figure).
in Section 3.1). Therefore, the grid resolution of 10 cpr was
used for all simulations unless mentioned otherwise. The grid
near the wall (in a direction normal to the wall) was refined drop in the horizontal direction is almost the same for the SCA
using a non-uniform grid spacing (see Fig. 2). and DCA, but there is appreciable change in the shape and the
drop height from 1 ms onwards. This is more apparent from
the comparison of the spread factors (d/D and h/D) shown in
3. Results and discussion Fig. 4. The predicted d/D using both the SCA and DCA was
in a very good agreement with the experiments. However, the
3.1. Drop impact on horizontal surfaces h/D predicted by the SCA and DCA were different at many
time instants. The measured data of h/D, however, was not
The dynamics of a glycerin drop impacting on different sur- available in Šikalo et al. (2005a). Interestingly, for the case of
faces (horizontal), for which experimental measurements were the glycerin drop impacting on the glass surface (see Figs. 5(a)
available (Šikalo et al., 2005a), was investigated. The simula- and (b)), the evolution of the drop shapes predicted using the
tions were carried out for the 2.45 mm diameter glycerin droplet SCA and DCA was significantly different. The comparison of
(physical properties given in Table 1) impacting at 1.0361 m/s d/D (see Fig. 6) indicates that unless the DCA is implemented,
(We = 51) on the horizontal glass (SCA = 15◦ ) and wax sur- the drop spreading (d/D and h/D) cannot be accurately pre-
faces (SCA =93.5◦ ) using both the SCA and DCA approaches. dicted. The SCA of 15◦ led to significant lateral spreading of
The time variation of the DCA reported by Šikalo et al. (2005a) the drop (see Fig. 5(a)) and thus the d/D was over-predicted
was used and implemented using the user defined subroutine. (see Fig. 6). However, when the DCA was implemented, the
Figs. 3(a), (b) and 5(a),(b) show the images of the evolution of contact angles were in the range of 160–75◦ (for t ∗ =0.01–7.0),
drop shapes at different times for the SCA and DCA models, re- which were order of magnitude higher than the SCA of 15◦ .
spectively. The quantitative comparison of the measured (Šikalo This led to the recoiling of the drop (e.g., see the drop shape
et al., 2005a) and the simulated spread factor (d/D) is shown at 15 ms) and the predicted d/D were in excellent agreement
in Figs. 4 and 6. with the measurements (see Fig. 6).
For the case of the glycerin drop impacting on the wax sur- It is also important to note that the predictions of the drop
face (Figs. 3(a) and (b)), it can seen that the spreading of the spreading d/D using the SCA and DCA were in a very good
 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224 7219

Fig. 5. Comparison of the evolution of drop shapes obtained using (a) SCA and (b) DCA simulation for the 2.45 mm glycerin drop impacting at 1.0361 m/s
(We = 51) on the horizontal glass surface (SCA = 15◦ , DCA as shown in Fig. 6).

3.2 2.5
DCA (radian), d/D, h/D

2.4 2

1.6 1.5

d/D, h/D 1
0.8

0.5
0.0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Dimensionless Time (t* = tu/D) 0
0.01 0.1 1 10
DCA-Experimental d/D-Experimental
Dimensionless Time (t* = tu/D)
(Sikalo et al., 2005a) (Sikalo et al., 2005a)
d/D-Simulated (SCA) d/D-Simulated (DCA) d/D-Experimental (Sikalo et al., 2005a) d/D-Simulated (6 cpr)
h/D-Simulated (SCA) h/D-Simulated (DCA) d/D-Simulated (10 cpr) d/D-Simulated (14 cpr)
h/D-Simulated (6 cpr) h/D-Simulated (10 cpr)
h/D-Simulated (14 cpr)
Fig. 6. Comparison of the spread factors for the 2.45 mm glycerin drop
impacting at 1.0361 m/s (We=51) on the horizontal glass surface (SCA=15◦ , Fig. 7. Effect of the grid resolution on the predicted spread factors for the
DCA as shown in the figure). 2.45 mm glycerin drop impacting at 1.0361 m/s (We = 51) on the horizontal
glass surface (using DCA as shown in Fig. 6).
agreement with the experiments for less wettable surface (wax)
for which the measured variation of the DCA (from 165◦ to
90◦ for t ∗ = 0.01–5.0) was not significantly different than the by Šikalo et al. (2005b) (shown in Fig. 1) viz. (a) splash (b)
SCA (=100◦ ). However, for more wettable surface (glass), the spreading (c) spreading and sliding (d) partial rebound (e) re-
measured variation of the DCA (from 160◦ to 75◦ for t ∗ = bound and (f) deformation. The simulation results based on the
0.01–7.0) was significantly different than the SCA (=15◦ ) and SCA model for corresponding regimes of Fig. 1 are shown in
therefore the predictions of the d/D using the DCA were dif- Figs. 8(a)–(f). It can be clearly seen that the regimes of drop
ferent than that using the SCA and were in excellent agreement splash, rebound and deformation were not captured using the
with the measurements. SCA approach. This can be attributed to the fact that for the
The effect of the grid resolution on the predicted d/D and typical cases of drop splash, rebound and deformation (shown
h/D ratios for the 2.45 mm glycerin drop impacting on the in Fig. 1) qualitatively appear to have higher values of the DCA
horizontal glass surface (using the DCA as shown in Fig. 6) was (> 90◦ i.e., less wettability characteristics) during the initial pe-
studied using the grid resolutions of 6, 10 and 14 cpr and the riod of contact because of which the liquid drop tends to recoil
results are shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that the effect of grid at the solid surface. The time variation of the contact angle for
resolution on the predicted d/D and h/D ratios was negligible splash, rebound and deformation regimes was not reported by
for a grid resolution greater than 10 cpr and therefore, in all Šikalo et al. (2005b). Based on the SCA given in Table 2 and
further simulations a grid resolution of 10 cpr was used unless DCA (Figs. 4 and 6), it can be understood that the SCA data (for
mentioned otherwise. glass surface-isopropanol SCA = 0◦ and glass surface-glycerin
SCA = 15◦ ) appear to have order of magnitudes differences
3.2. Drop impact on inclined surfaces from DCA values at the initial contact times.
The simulation results for the 2.72 mm water droplet impact-
The numerical investigations for inclined surfaces were pri- ing at 3.25 m/s (We = 391) on the 10◦ inclined wax surface
marily focused to simulate the regimes of drop impact observed (static—R = 105◦ , A = 95◦ ) were in good agreement with the
7220 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224

Fig. 8. Simulated regimes of the drop impact and spreading over inclined surfaces. (a) Splash; (b) Spreading; (c) Spreading and sliding; (d) Partial rebound;
(e) Rebound; (f) Deformation. (Other details same as given in the caption of Fig. 1.)

Table 2 also in excellent agreement with the measured xback /D factor

Static contact angle data for inclined surfaces (Šikalo et al., 2005b) (Šikalo et al., 2005a) up to t ∗ = 1. However, for t ∗ > 1, the
Liquid Glass Wax xback /D factor was under-predicted. The simulation results for
◦ ◦
the 2.72 mm water droplet impacting at 3.25 m/s (We = 391) on
A ( ) R ( ) A (◦ ) R ( ◦ )
the 10◦ inclined glass surface (static—R = 6◦ , A = 10◦ ) are
Water 10 6 105 95 shown in Fig. 8(b). The corresponding spread factors (xfront /D
Glycerin 17 13 97 90 and xback /D) for this case were slightly over predicted as shown
Isopropanol ∼0 ∼0 ∼0 ∼0
in Fig. 10(b). As shown before, this over prediction is because
of the lower values of static R and A in comparison with the
higher values of the DCA present during initial contact period.
experimentally observed spreading and sliding regime (shown The effect of the surface inclination was further studied
in Fig. 9). The predicted spread factor (xfront /D) was in ex- for two cases of 2.72 mm diameter water droplet impacting at
cellent agreement with the measured xfront /D factor (Šikalo 1.55 m/s (We = 90) on the 45◦ inclined wax and glass surfaces
et al., 2005a) (see Fig. 10(a)). The predicted xback /D factor was for which a quantitative data on the time variation of spread
 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224 7221

4
x back

x front Point of

x/D
2 cont act

0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0

-2
t* (tu/D)

xfront/D-Experimental (Sikalo etal., 2005b) xfront/D-Simulated (SCA)

xback/D-Experimental (Sikalo etal., 2005b) xback/D-Simulated (SCA)

x/D
2

0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0

-2
Fig. 9. Simulation results for a 2.72 mm water droplet impacting at 3.25 m/s t* (tu/D)
(We = 391) on 10◦ inclined wax surface. (a) Experimental image (Šikalo xfront/D-Experimental (Sikalo etal., 2005b) xfront/D-Simulated (SCA)
et al., 2005b, reproduced with permission); (b) side view; (c) top view (time xback/D-Experimental (Sikalo etal., 2005b) xback/D-Simulated (SCA)
interval between the images is 1 ms).
Fig. 10. Comparison of the predicted spread factors with the experiments
factor (xfront /D and xback /D) was reported by Šikalo et al. of Šikalo et al. (2005b) for the (a) wax–water and (b) glass–water system
(2005a). Both of these water–wax and water–glass systems (We = 391, 10◦ inclination).
were simulated using the SCA approach. The simulated evo-
lutions of drop spreading for the water–wax and water–glass
system are shown in Figs. 11 and 13, respectively. The plots
in Figs. 12 and 14 show the comparison of the measured and
the predicted spread factors (xfront /D and xback /D) as a func-
tion of the dimensionless time (t ∗ = tu/D). Similar to the ob-
servation made for 10◦ inclined surfaces, an excellent agree-
ment was found for the water–wax system (Fig. 12), but the
spread factors were over predicted for the water–glass sys-
tem (Fig. 14). It should be noted that the SCA approach has
better predictive accuracy for the less wettable wax surface
(static—R = 105◦ , A = 95◦ ) than the more wettable glass
surface (static—R = 10◦ , A = 6◦ ). As shown in Fig. 14, the
predicted h/D for the water–glass system was also in excellent Fig. 11. Predicted spreading of the 2.72 mm water droplet impacting at
agreement with the measurements of Šikalo et al. (2005b). One 1.55 m/s (We = 90) on the 45◦ inclined wax surface.
experimental image for the 2.72 mm diameter water droplet im-
pacting at 1.55 m/s (We=90) on the 45◦ inclined wax surface at
time t = 8.08 ms was reported by Šikalo et al. (2005a) (shown Figs. 1(a), (d), (e), (f)) quantitatively, the measured time varia-
in Fig. 15(a)). The corresponding simulated result is shown in tion of R and A (DCA approach) can be implemented through
Fig. 15(b) and it can be inferred that the experimentally and user defined sub-routines in the commercial solver. Bussmann
numerically observed drop shapes are in acceptable agreement et al. (1999) have demonstrated the such an implementation
as there is a collection of some liquid at the advancing edge, a which could successfully predict the drop spreading behav-
shallow central region, and a receding edge as seen in Fig. 15(a). ior. However, such predictions could not be included in this
In order to predict the dynamics of drop spreading observed manuscript due to lack of data on measured time variation of
in the regimes of splash, rebound and deformation (shown in R and A . The work on the implementation of DCA model
7222 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224

3.2

2.4

1.6
x/D

0.8

0.0

-0.8
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
t* = (tu/D)
xfront/D-Experimental xback/D-Experimental
(Sikalo et al., 2005a) (Sikalo et al., 2005a)
xfront/D-Simulated (SCA) xback/D-Simulated (SCA)

Fig. 12. Comparison of the predicted spread factors for the wax–water system
(We = 90◦ , 45◦ surface inclination) with the measurements of Šikalo et al.
(2005a).

Fig. 15. Qualitative comparison of the drop shape for the 2.72 mm water drop
impacting on the 45◦ inclined wax surface: (a) experiments of Šikalo et al.
(2005a), image at t = 8.08 ms (reproduced with permission), (b) prediction
at time t = 8.0 ms.

proposed by Bussmann (2000) and generating experimental

data on the time variation of R and A for the cases in the
Fig. 13. Predicted spreading of the 2.72 mm water droplet impacting at
regimes of splash, rebound and deformation will be reported
1.55 m/s (We = 90) on the 45◦ inclined glass surface.
separately.

4. Conclusions
3.2
The dynamics of drop impact and spreading on the horizon-
2.4
tal and the inclined surfaces was investigated using the VOF
method and the predictions were validated using the experi-
ments of Šikalo et al. (2005a,b). For the horizontal surfaces,
x/D and h/D

1.6
the results indicated that when the surface is less wettable
0.8 (SCA > 90◦ ), predictions of both the SCA and DCA models
agree remarkably well with the measurements. For highly wet-
table surfaces (SCA < 90◦ ), unless the measured time varia-
0.0

-0.8 tion of the contact angle (DCA) is provided, the drop spreading
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 cannot be accurately predicted.
t* = (tu/D)
The simulations of the drop spreading on the inclined
xfront/D-Experimental xback/D-Experimental surfaces using the SCA were performed to predict the dif-
(Sikalo et al., 2005a) (Sikalo et al., 2005a)
xfront/D-Simulated (SCA) xback/D-Simulated (SCA) ferent regimes of splash, spreading, spreading and sliding,
h/D-Experimental (Sikalo et al., 2005b) h/D-Simulated (SCA) rebound and deformation observed experimentally by Šikalo
et al. (2005b). The spreading and sliding regimes could be
Fig. 14. Comparison of the predicted spread factors and apex height variation predicted quantitatively well using the SCA approach. How-
for the glass-water system (We = 90◦ , 45◦ surface inclination) with the
measurements of Šikalo et al. (2005a).
ever, the observed regimes of splash, rebound and deforma-
tion regimes were not in good qualitative agreement. In such
 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224 7223

regimes of splash, rebound and deformation, the experimental References

images reported by Šikalo et al. (2005b) indicate higher val-
ues of DCA (> 90◦ i.e., less wettable characteristics) during Afkhami, S., Bussmann, M., 2006. Drop impact simulation with a velocity-
the initial period of contact than the SCA because of which dependent contact angle. In: ILASS America’s 19th Annual Conference
on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Toronto, Canada.
the liquid drop tends to recoil and exhibits partial or full re- Brackbill, J.U., Kothe, D.B., Zemach, C., 1992. A continuum method for
bound regimes. Whereas the SCA reported for such regimes modeling surface tension. Journal of Computational Physics 100, 335–354.
were order of magnitude lower (e.g., for the glass surface Bussmann, M., 2000. A three-dimensional model of an impacting droplet.
SCA = 6–10◦ ) in comparison with the DCA in early times of Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
University of Toronto, Canada.
the contact and therefore the simulations carried using such
Bussmann, M., Mostaghimi, J., Chandra, S., 1999. On a three-dimensional
low values of SCA failed to predict the observed partial or full volume tracking model of droplet impact. Physics of Fluids 11 (6),
rebound regimes. Therefore, it is imperative to develop and 1406–1417.
rigorously validate the DCA models which can account for Bussmann, M., Chandra, S., Mostaghimi, J., 2000. Modeling of a droplet
the time variation of contact angles for the above-mentioned impacting on solid surface. Physics of Fluids 12 (12), 3121–3132.
regimes of drop impact on the inclined surfaces. Fluent 6.3 Users Guide, Ansys Inc., Lebanon, NH, 1996.
Fukai, J., Shiiba, Y., Yamamoto, T., Miyatake, O., Poulikakos, D., Megaridis,
C.M., Zhao, Z., 1995. Wetting effects on the spreading of a liquid droplet
Notations colliding with a flat surface: experiment and modeling. Physics of Fluids
7 (2), 236–247.
Fukai, J., Etou, M., Asanoma, F., Miyatake, O., 2000. Dynamic contact angles
D drop diameter, m of water droplets sliding on inclined hot surfaces. Journal of Chemical
d instantaneous drop spread m Engineering of Japan 33 (1), 177–179.
F continuum surface force, kg m−2 s−2
Grunau, D., Chen, S., Eggert, K., 1993. A lattice-Boltzmann model for
multiphase fluid flows. Physics of Fluids A5, 2557–2562.
g gravitational acceleration, m s−2 Gunjal, P.R., Ranade, V.V., Chaudhari, R.V., 2005. Dynamics of drop impact
h instantaneous drop height, m on solid surface: experiments and VOF simulations. A.I.Ch.E Journal 51
n surface normal vector (1), 64–83.

n unit normal Gunstensen, A., Rothman, D., Zaleski, S., Zanetti, G., 1991. Lattice-
Boltzmann model of immiscible fluids. Physical Review A 43, 4320–4327.

nw unit normal at wall Hirt, C.W., Nichols, B.D., 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the
P pressure, Pa dynamics of free boundaries. Journal of Computational Physics 39,
q particular phase under consideration 201–225.
t time, s Issa, R., 1985. Solution of the implicit discretized fluid flow equations by
tˆw unit tangent to the wall operator splitting. Journal of Computational Physics 62, 40–65.
Kang, B.S., Lee, S.H., 2000. On the dynamic behavior of a liquid droplet
t∗ dimensionless time ( = tu/D) impacting upon an inclined surface. Experiments in Fluids 29, 380–387.
u drop impact velocity, m s−1 Leonard, B.P., 1979. A stable and accurate convective modeling procedure
uslip slip velocity, m s−1 based on quadratic upstream interpolation. Computer Methods in Applied
v velocity vector, m s−1 Mechanics and Engineering 19, 59–98.
Mundo, C., Sommerfeld, M., Tropea, C., 1995. Droplet-wall collisions.
We Weber number (=Du2 /) Experimental studies of the deformation and breakup process. International
x drop instantaneous spread, m Journal of Multiphase Flow 21 (2), l5l–l73.
xfront displacement of the advancing tip of drop from Nourgaliev, R., Dinh, T., Theofanous, T., Joseph, D., 2003. The lattice
the point of contact over inclined surface, m Boltzmann equation method: theoretical interpretation, numerics and
xback displacement of the receding tip of drop from implications. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 29, 117–169.
Osher, S., Sethian, L., 1988. Fronts propagating with curvature-depending
the point of contact over inclined surface, m speed: algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. Journal of
Greek letters Computational Physics 79, 12–49.
Pasandideh-Fard, M., Qiao, Y.M., Chandra, S., Mostaghimi, J., 1996. Capillary
 volume fraction of phase effects during droplet impact on a solid surface. Physics of Fluids 8 (3),
A advancing contact on an inclined wall,◦ 650–659.
R receding contact angle on inclined wall, ◦ Pasandideh-Fard, M., Chandra, S., Mostaghimi, J., 2002. A three-dimensional
model of droplet impact and solidification. International Journal of Heat
w contact angle on an horizontal wall, ◦ and Mass Transfer 45, 2229–2242.
 radius of curvature, m Renardy, M., Renardy, Y., Li, J., 2001. Numerical simulation of moving
 slip length, m contact line problems using a volume-of-fluid method. Journal of
 viscosity, N s m−2 Computational Physics 171, 243–263.
Reznik, S.N., Yarin, A.L., 2002. Spreading of an axi-symmetric viscous drop
 density, kg m−3 due to gravity and capillarity on a dry horizontal wall. International Journal
 surface tension, N m−1 of Multiphase Flow 28 (9), 1437–1457.
angle of surface inclination, ◦ Rider, W.J., Kothe, D.B., 1998. Reconstructing volume tracking. Journal of
Computational Physics 141, 112–152.
Acronyms Sedev, R.V., Budziak, C.J., Petrov, J.G., Newmann, A.W., 1993. Dynamic
contact angles at low velocities. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science
SCA static contact angle 159, 392–399.
DCA dynamic contact angle Shan, X., Chen, H., 1993. Lattice Boltzmann model for simulating flows with
VOF volume of fluid method multiple phases and components. Physics Review E 47, 1815–1819.
7224 S.F. Lunkad et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 7214 – 7224

Shan, X., Doolen, G., 1995. Multi-component lattice-Boltzmann model with Sussman, P.S.M., Osher, S., 1994. A level set approach for computing
intra-particle interaction. Journal of Statistical Physics 81, 379–393. solutions to incompressible two-phase flow. Journal of Computational
Šikalo, Š., Tropea, C., Ganic, E.N., 2005a. Dynamic wetting angle of a Physics 114, 146–159.
spreading droplet. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 29, 795–802. Tryggvason, G., Bunner, B., Esmaeeli, A., Juric, D., Al-Rawahi, N., Tauber,
Šikalo, Š., Tropea, C., Ganic, E.N., 2005b. Impact of droplets onto inclined W., Han, J., Nas, S., Janz, Y.J., 2001. A front-tracking method for the
surfaces. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 286, 661–669. computations of multiphase flow. Journal of Computational Physics 169,
Šikalo, Š., Marengo, M., Tropea, C., Ganic, E.N., 2005c. Analysis of impact 708–759.
of droplets on horizontal surfaces. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science Unverdi, S.O., Tryggvason, G., 1992. A front tracking method for viscous,
25, 503–510. incompressible, multi-fluid flows. Journal of Computational Physics 100,
Šikalo, Š., Wilhelm, H.D., Roisman, I.V., Jakirlic, S., Tropea, C., 2005d. 25–37.
Dynamic contact angle of spreading droplets: experiments and simulations. Youngs, D.L., 1982. Time-dependent multi-material flow with large fluid
Physics of Fluids 17, 062103, 1–13. distortion. In: Morton, K.W., Baines, M.J. (Eds.), Numerical Methods for
Spelt, P., 2005. A level set approach for simulations of flows with multiple Fluid Dynamics. Academic Press, New York.
moving contact lines with hysteresis. Journal of Computational Physics
207, 389–404.