Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 25 (2002) 503±510

www.elsevier.com/locate/etfs

Analysis of impact of droplets on horizontal surfaces

 Sikalo
S.  a
, M. Marengo b, C. Tropea c, E.N. Ganic a,*

a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sarajevo, Vilsonovo setaliste 9, 71000 Sarajevo Bosnia & Hercegovina
b
Faculty of Engineering, University of Bergamo, via Marconi 5, 24044 Dalmine, Italy
c
SLA, Technische Universitat Darmstadt, Petersenstraûe 30, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany

Received 2 May 2001; received in revised form 31 August 2001; accepted 2 October 2001

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation of droplets impacting on horizontal surfaces. The e€ects of the
impact parameters on the droplet impingement are studied. The results are presented for di€erent droplet Weber numbers, ranging
from 50 to 1080 and for three liquids: water, isopropanol and glycerin. Four kinds of surfaces were used with characteristic wet-
tability (given in terms of the contact angle): smooth glass, PVC, wax and rough glass. We studied in some detail the kinematics of
the moving contact line during the spreading process. Particularly we are interested in the e€ects of the wettability of the wall by the
liquid. The surface wettability has been observed to have a strong in¯uence on the spreading of droplet in the later stages of the
process. The results are presented in the form of charts describing the spreading diameter and apex height of droplets in terms of
time. Ó 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc.

Keywords: Droplets; Wettability

1. Introduction fects of impact parameters on the maximum spreading

When a droplet falls onto a dry surface, in general,
two outcomes of the post-impact process are possible.
At small impact velocities the droplet may deposit on
the surface and form a liquid ®lm or at higher impact
velocities, the droplet can splash and secondary droplets
are formed.
The droplet impact hydrodynamics has been investi-
gated theoretically, numerically and experimentally. The
theoretical approach applies mass and energy conser-
vation to calculate the maximum spreading diameter.
Examples are the work of Chandra and Avedisian [1],
and Pasandideh-Fard et al. [2]. The numerical approach
simulates the transient ¯ow ®eld during droplet
spreading using computational ¯uid dynamics codes.
Examples are the work of Trapaga and Szekely [3],
Fukai et al. [4,5], Bussmann et al. [6,7] and Geldorp et al.
[8]. Most experimental studies of droplet impact and
spreading have been performed using a high-speed
camera. Mao et al. [9] examined experimentally the ef-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +387-33-617205; fax: +387-33-617205.
E-mail address: ejup_ganic@hotmail.com (E.N. Ganic).
and rebound, and presented a rebound model of a
droplet upon impact. Zhang and Basaran [10] reported a
detailed experimental study that focused on the e€ect of
surfactants on the spread and rebound of a droplet.
The previous studies have shown that the relevant
dimensionless parameters governing the droplet±wall
interaction are the Reynolds number (Re ˆ quD=l),
Weber number (We ˆ qu2 D=r) and average surface
roughness Ra . Here u is the impact velocity, D is the
droplet diameter or volume equivalent diameter, q is the
¯uid density, r is the surface tension and l is the dy-
namic viscosity. Wettability has yet to be accounted for
in a non-dimensional representation.
It appears, that a general correlation does not yet
exist to describe the time evolution of the droplet
spreading process. Experimental information about the
e€ects of impact parameters is however essential for
droplet±wall interaction models.
The purpose of the present study is to provide such
information in a form suitable to formulate empirical
models of the droplet±wall interaction. The kinematics
of droplet spreading is measured for cold and dry sur-
faces. A CCD camera has been employed to visualize the

0894-1777/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc.

PII: S 0 8 9 4 - 1 7 7 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 0 9 - 1
504  Sikalo
S.  et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 25 (2002) 503±510

Nomenclature l dynamic viscosity of the liquid,

d spreading diameter, m kg=m s
D droplet diameter before impact, m q density of the liquid, kg=m3
Ra average surface roughness, lm r surface tension of the liquid, N=m
Re Reynolds number, Re ˆ quD=l Subscripts
t time after impact, s adv. advancing
u impact velocity, m=s con. contact line
We Weber number, We ˆ u2 D=r h horizontal
y apex height, m lam. lamella
Symbols rec. receding
h static contact angle, deg v vertical

process. In the present paper, experimental data on

droplet spreading on the surfaces are presented for a
range of Weber numbers (We ˆ 50 to 1080) based on
droplet velocity and the liquid density. Three liquids
were selected for their characteristic liquid properties,
water, isopropanol and glycerin, to study the e€ect of
liquid surface tension and viscosity. Four kinds of plates
were selected for characteristic surface properties,
smooth glass, wax, PVC, and rough glass to study the
e€ect of liquid contact angle and roughness. The droplet
spreading process is discussed on the basis of these ex-
perimental results.

2. Experimental techniques and apparatus

A schematic of the set-up used in the experiment of

impact of single droplets on the dry surfaces is shown in
Fig. 1. The equipment used in the experiments is de-
scribed in previous papers by Marengo et al. [11,12].
From an elevated reservoir a feed line leads through a
valve to a syringe, and droplets are formed and fall onto
the target surface. The droplet is enclosed in a vertical 32 Fig. 1. Experimental set-up.
mm i.d. Plexiglass tube to protect it from air ¯ow dis-
turbances. The droplet passes a light barrier that acti-
vates an electronic delay circuit and thus triggers a CCD
camera and a stroboscope. The camera takes a single
image of the drop impact event at the speci®ed delay
time. In other cases, up to 10 images of a single impact
can be recorded on a single frame with a time delay up
to 1 ms between individual exposures, as shown in Fig. 2.
The exposure was set between 1 and 5 ls to insure sharp
pictures. Using the multiple exposure features, the Fig. 2. Multi-exposure images of an isopropanol droplet. The time
interval between the ®rst and the second frame is 1 ms and the interval
droplet impact velocity and the spreading diameter upon
between the second and the third is 5 ms (D ˆ 3:3 mm, We ˆ 287).
impact could be precisely determined. The CCD camera
(Sensicam PCO) has a shutter speed of 100 ns with a
maximum dynamic range of 12 bits (4096 gray levels) using a calibration scale. The magni®cation was ma-
and a resolution of 1280  1024 pixels. Using a special nipulated so that the image could accommodate the
lens system (COSMICAR), di€erent magni®cations (M) maximum spread of the droplet.
from 0.7 to 4.5 can be obtained. The spatial resolution Images were taken using the camera internal shutter,
(number of pixels per mm) is given by the relation triggered on the initial pulse generated by the light
M
70 pixel=mm. The spatial resolution was calibrated barrier, with the pre-set initial time delay and the time
  Sikalo
S.  et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 25 (2002) 503±510 505

delay between exposures. For illumination, a projector Table 1

Properties of the liquids and wettability of the surfaces
with a glass di€user was used in order to produce a
uniform, bright, di€used light source. The short illumi- Liquid Water Isopropanol Glycerin
nation time used for the multi-exposure images lead to a r, N/m 0.073 0.021 0.063
low signal/noise ratio. For single image shots, a high l, MPa s 1.0 2.4 116
light intensity stroboscope (CERMAX) with a Xenon q, kg=m3 996 786 1220
lamp and a 2-ls ¯ash duration was used, which resulted Smooth glass
in a very high contour de®nition. hadv: hrec: 10° 6° 0° 17° 13°
The camera was positioned on a support with three- Rough glass
hadv: hrec: 78° 16° 0° 62° 12°
dimensional translation and rotation. The focus of the Smooth wax
camera was adjusted using this translation stage. hadv: hrec: 105° 95° 0° 97° 90°
The camera was aligned horizontally, and thus parallel Smooth PVC
to the impact surface, in all the experiments. hadv: hrec: 83° 53° 0° 64° 46°
The diameter of a droplet was measured from the
droplet image just before impact. The droplet was not
perfectly spherical. Both horizontal and vertical diame- between 3264 and 14 800, two isopropanol droplets of
ters were measured. The equivalent droplet diameter diameter 3.3 mm with a Reynolds number between 700
D ˆ …D2h Dv †1=3 , where Dh is the horizontal diameter and and 3656, a 1.8-mm droplet with a Reynolds number
Dv is the vertical diameter, was calculated assuming that from 511 to 1450 and a glycerin droplet of diameter 2.45
the droplet is rotationally symmetric with respect to the mm with Reynolds number from 27 to 122.5 were used
vertical axis. in this study.
Typically, the percentage di€erence between Dh and Varying the height from which the droplets fall
Dv was 0.4% at We ˆ 50 and 4.2% at We ˆ 1060 for a changed the droplet velocity. Two target surfaces of
2.45-mm glycerin droplet; less than 6.4% for a 2.7 mm glass; one ``smooth'' (with roughness of Ra ˆ 0:003 lm
water droplet; 22% at We ˆ 50 and 2.5% at We ˆ 544 for amplitude) and one ``rough'' (Ra ˆ 3:6 lm), a surface of
a 3.3-mm isopropanol droplet; and less than 2.5% for a smooth wax (Ra ˆ 0:3 lm), and a ``smooth'' PVC plate
1.8-mm isopropanol droplet. The droplet velocity just (Ra ˆ 0:3 lm) were used. The impact process is adia-
before impact was calculated from a distance measure- batic, i.e., there is no heat exchange between the surface
ment and a pre-set time delay between two subsequent and the droplet.
exposures. The impact velocity was derived with an ac- Table 1 presents the properties of the liquids and the
curacy of 0:02 m=s (95% con®dence) at Weber numbers wettability of the surfaces as advancing (hadv: ) and re-
of 50 and 0:06 m=s at Weber numbers of 1070. Con- ceding (hrec: ) static contact angles for the cases studied.
sidering also the 6 lm uncertainty in the droplet di- The measurement of the contact angle of isopropanol on
ameter determination, the uncertainty in the calculated the di€erent surfaces was dicult because of the fast
Weber number ranged from 2 at Weber numbers of 50 spreading and the high evaporation rate. A value of zero
and 40 at Weber numbers of 1070. has been given in Table 1.
The experiment was highly reproducible. The preci-
sion of timing and spatial measurement of deformation 3.2. E€ect of surface material
determines the experimental reproducibility. A maxi-
mum error of 3 pixels for the estimation of the droplet The results on the following ®gures comprise pri-
contour was achieved. The time accuracy is mainly de- marily the spread factor …d=D† and apex height …y=D† of
®ned by the uncertainties of de®ning the moment of a droplet as functions of time from impact, expressed in
impact (t ˆ 0). In the worst case, an accuracy of 1 pixel a dimensionless form, as tu=D. Fig. 3 shows the e€ect of
corresponds typically to a time error of 5 ls. the substrate surface on the impact process of a 2.7-mm
water droplet, the impact velocity was 1:17 m=s with an
associated droplet Weber number of We ˆ 50 and a
3. Results and discussion Reynolds number of Re ˆ 3264. In the ®rst stage of
spreading for dimensionless time tu=D from 0.0 to 0.5,
3.1. Experimental conditions the surface has no e€ect on the spreading velocity. In the
following stage up to the maximum spread, the e€ect of
The spread of a single droplet is studied for dry sur- the surface is, however, important. The maximum
faces. Three liquids, water, 2-isopropanol …C3 H8 O†, and spread of a water droplet on the smooth glass surface is
glycerin were used. The Weber number based on the larger than that on the wax, PVC and rough glass. The
liquid droplet density and droplet diameter was varied maximum spread increases with decreasing contact an-
between 50 and 1080 for all of the liquids. The water gle. This is in agreement with the observation of Ford
droplet of diameter 2.7 mm with a Reynolds number and Furmidge [13]. The contact angle of a water droplet
506  Sikalo
S.  et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 25 (2002) 503±510
Fig. 3. E€ect of surface on the spread of a water droplet, D ˆ 2:7 mm,
u ˆ 1:17 m=s, We ˆ 50.
on the rough glass is larger than that on the smooth
glass, as shown in Table 1. The e€ect of the surface
material (contact angle) on the maximum spread de-
creases with increase of the impact velocity (Fig. 4).
For the wax surface with high static contact angles,
the drop begins to recoil once the maximum spreading
diameter has been reached. No signi®cant recoil is
observed for the glass surface, at a Weber number of
We ˆ 50 (Fig. 3). A signi®cant recoil is observed for
the glass surface, at a Weber number of We ˆ 763
(Fig. 4). The recoil can result in a partial or complete
bounce of the droplet away from the surface, de-
pending on the receding contact angle and di€erence
between the maximum spread and ®nal spread. The
higher impact Weber number leads to a larger maxi-
mum spread.
Fig. 5 compares the apex height of a water droplet on
the glass and wax, which shows that the surface does not
a€ect the apex height up to the minimum apex (maxi-
mum spread). Its e€ect dominates only the recoil phase.
The rebound of a water droplet on the wax is strong and
increases with increasing impact velocity. The droplet
reaches a ®nal state (equilibrium) after its excess energy
is completely dissipated. It takes longer to reach a ®nal
state on the wax surface than on the glass surface.
Fig. 4. E€ect of surface on the spread of a water droplet, D ˆ 2:7 mm,
u ˆ 4:52 m=s, We ˆ 763.
Fig. 5. E€ect of surface on the apex height of a water droplet,
D ˆ 2:7 mm, u ˆ 1:54 m=s, We ˆ 90.
This is in agreement with the observation of Mao et al.
[9].
The maximum spread of droplets on rough glass is
smaller than that on the smooth glass and approxi-
mately equal to that on smooth wax, as shown in Fig. 3.
The smaller maximum spread and smaller spreading
velocity are an e€ect of the larger advancing contact
angle on rough surfaces than that on smooth surfaces, as
shown in Table 1. The low receding contact angle sup-
presses the recoil as for a smooth glass. The area of
liquid±solid contact decreases slower on the rough glass
than on the smooth glass. On the other hand, on the
rough glass a water droplet splashes at considerably
lower Weber number. In this case splash occurred at
about We ˆ 390. For rough glass, the splashing occurs
under the in¯uence of the roughness on the lamella (the
sheet of ¯uid that jets radially outward under a
spreading droplet shortly after impact) instability at an
early stage of lamella formation.
3.3. E€ect of impact velocity
The in¯uence of the impact velocity (expressed here
by the Weber number) on the spread of a water droplet
on wax is shown in Fig. 6. The maximum spread and
Fig. 6. E€ect of impact velocity on maximum spread and recoil of a
water droplet on wax, D ˆ 2:7 mm.
  Sikalo
S.  et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 25 (2002) 503±510 507

Fig. 7. E€ect of impact velocity on the apex height of a water droplet Fig. 8. E€ect of liquid viscosity on spread and recoil of a water droplet
on wax, D ˆ 2:7 mm D ˆ 2:7 mm, u ˆ 1:54 m=s, Re ˆ 4200, isopropanol droplet D ˆ
1:8 mm, u ˆ 0:88 m=s, Re ˆ 691 and glycerin droplet D ˆ 2:45 mm,
u ˆ 1:41 m=s, Re ˆ 36:3 upon impact on the wax at the same Weber
spreading velocity increases with increasing impact ve- numbers (about 92).
locity. The e€ect of the impact velocity on the apex
height of a water droplet on a wax surface is illustrated
in Fig. 7, which shows that velocity does not signi®-
cantly e€ect the change of the apex height in terms of
dimensionless time tu=D, for the spreading phase. The
time of recoil and apex height in the phase of rebound
increases with increasing impact velocity. At low impact
velocity (We ˆ 50) a water droplet bounced o€ without
break-up, while at larger impact velocities (We > 90) the
water droplet breaks up in three or four secondary
droplets.

3.4. E€ect of viscosity

Fig. 9. E€ect of liquid viscosity on apex height of a water droplet
The spread factor and apex height of droplets of D ˆ 2:7 mm, u ˆ 1:54 m=s, Re ˆ 4200, isopropanol droplet D ˆ
di€erent liquids are compared to examine the e€ect of 1:8 mm, u ˆ 0:88 m=s, Re ˆ 691 and glycerin droplet D ˆ 2:45 mm,
u ˆ 1:41 m=s, Re ˆ 36:3 upon impact on the wax at the same Weber
droplet viscosity. Three di€erent runs, characterized by numbers (about 92).
nearly the same Weber numbers (about 92) and Rey-
nolds numbers of 4200, 691 and 36.3 for water, iso-
propanol and glycerin droplets, respectively, are shown
in Figs. 8 and 9. Two runs characterised by approxi-
mately equal Weber numbers (We ˆ 763 and 802) and
Reynolds numbers of 12 300 and 107 for water and
glycerin droplets, respectively, are illustrated in Figs. 10
and 11. In both cases the targets surface of wax was
used.
No signi®cant di€erence is seen in the initial stage of
spreading (tu=D < 0:04), because the e€ect of inertial
forces of impact dominates the process. The maximum
spread of the glycerin droplet is much less than that for
the water droplet. The recoil time of the glycerin
droplet is very long compared with the time for a water Fig. 10. E€ect of liquid viscosity on spread and recoil of a water
droplet D ˆ 2:7 mm, u ˆ 4:54 m=s, Re ˆ 12 300 and glycerin droplet
droplet, as shown in Figs. 8±11. After tu=D ˆ 0:7, the
D ˆ 2:45 mm, u ˆ 4:1 m=s, Re ˆ 107 upon impact on the wax.
apex height decreases slowly and the minimal apex
height is larger for the glycerin droplet than that for
the water and isopropanol droplets, due to higher 3.5. E€ect of surface tension
viscous dissipation, as shown in Fig. 9. No rebound
was observed for the glycerin droplet on the wax sur- Droplet surface tension is an important variable af-
face. fecting the impact process. The surface tension is em-
508  Sikalo
S.  et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 25 (2002) 503±510
Fig. 11. E€ect of liquid viscosity on apex height of a water droplet
D ˆ 2:7 mm, u ˆ 4:54 m=s, Re ˆ 12 300 and glycerin droplet D ˆ
2:45 mm, u ˆ 4:1 m=s, Re ˆ 107 upon impact on the wax.
bedded in the Weber number. The e€ect of the surface
tension is studied through a comparison between results
for a water droplet and an isopropanol droplet.
Although the di€erence in viscosity of these two liquids
also has an e€ect on the process, the e€ect of surface
tension still remains obvious. The detachment of the
lamella and formation of the crown for a dry,
smooth surface was observed with an isopropanol
droplet at a Weber number of about 300, as shown in
Fig. 12(a).
At this Weber number the detached lamella simply
falls and adheres to the surface. At larger values of the
Weber number the di€erence between the contact di-
ameter and the detached lamella diameter increases up
to the time of break-up (splash) of the lamella, as indi-
cated in Fig. 12(b). The lamella diameter is taken here as
diameter of the expanding sheet before the splash. The
splash occurs due to instability of lamella, after it
reaches a certain diameter, as shown in Fig. 13. No
splash was observed for a water droplet on a smooth
surface for Weber numbers up to 1080, the maximum
value considered in the present experiment.
Fig. 12. Impact of an isopropanol droplet on dry smooth glass:
(a) crown formation (t ˆ 0:254 ms), (b) splash (t ˆ 1:235 ms):
D ˆ 3:3 mm, We ˆ 544.
Fig. 13. Contact line and lamella spread factor of an isopropanol
droplet D ˆ 3:3 mm upon impact on the smooth glass, We ˆ 391.
3.6. E€ect of droplet size
The experimental data for two isopropanol droplet,
D ˆ 3:3 mm and D ˆ 1:8 mm were compared to in-
vestigate the e€ect of droplet size on the impact pro-
cess. The droplet diameter is embedded in both the
Weber number and Reynolds number, which directly
relate to spread and apex height. Fig. 14 shows the
time variation of the spread radius for the two drop-
lets.
The lower values of d=D for the smaller droplet,
suggest that viscosity e€ects (lower Re) are relatively
more important to the smaller droplet, therefore, the
dimensionless spread remains consistently lower than
that of the larger droplet in time. The same behaviour is
observed with the maximum spread. The droplet size has
no e€ect on the apex height, as shown in Fig. 15. The
e€ect of the Weber number is shown in Fig. 16. The
lower values of d=D for the smaller droplet, suggest that
surface tension e€ects are relatively more important to
the larger droplet (lower We) in the ®rst phase of the
spread.
Fig. 14. Spread factor of two isopropanol droplets D ˆ 3:3 mm,
Re ˆ 942 and D ˆ 1:8 mm, Re ˆ 691 upon impact on smooth glass at
the same Weber number (We ˆ 93).
  Sikalo
S.  et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 25 (2002) 503±510
Fig. 15. Apex height of two isopropanol droplets D ˆ 3:3 mm,
Re ˆ 942 and D ˆ 1:8 mm, Re ˆ 691 upon impact on the smooth glass
at the same Weber number (We ˆ 93).
Fig. 16. Spread factor of two isopropanol droplets D ˆ 3:3 mm,
We ˆ 93 and D ˆ 1:8 mm, We ˆ 175, upon impact on the smooth glass
at approximately equal Reynolds numbers (Re ˆ 942 and 956).
4. Practical signi®cance and future research needs
The present investigations provide experimental data
that extend the knowledge about impact process of a
droplet on dry surfaces. The data allow further insight
into the transport mechanisms of momentum important
in modeling spray coating and painting, surface cooling
and liquid spreading (ink-jet printing, pesticides aerosol
spreading), heat transfer in dispersed ¯ows where the
dispersed stream is in direct contact with the wall, as in
post dry-out regimes, etc. The results of this experiment
are important for formulating empirical models of im-
pacting droplet±surface interaction. They are also useful
for numerical prediction codes that require the input of
either the dynamic contact angle models or the kine-
matics of the moving contact line during contact
spreading. The high-resolution CCD camera itself to-
gether with the image processing software represent an
important data analyzing system for liquid spreading.
The system may be used in investigation of dynamic
contact angle.
509
Future research should deal with following top-
ics:
1. Analysis of droplet impact on inclined surfaces.
Normal impacts of a droplet are rare in practice.
A few studies considered impact with inclined sur-
faces. When a droplet impacts on inclined surface,
the shape of the droplet distorts, exhibiting an
asymmetric shape at the point of impact. A droplet
on an inclined low wettable surface can slip and
slide.
2. The dynamic contact angle is required as a boundary
condition for numerical calculation in capillary hy-
drodynamics. However, there is no general correla-
tion of the dynamic contact angle as a function of
the surface characteristics, droplet ¯uid and diameter
and impact velocity.
5. Conclusions
This paper presented an experimental study of the
impact of liquid droplets on horizontal surfaces. Em-
phasis was placed upon understanding the spread,
recoil/rebound and splash of a liquid droplet after
collision with surfaces. According to the foregoing
results, the maximum spread increases with increasing
Reynolds number and Weber number. The e€ect of
the contact angle has importance on the spread at
small Reynolds numbers and Weber numbers, and
with increasing Reynolds number and Weber number
the e€ect of the contact angle is less important on
maximum spread. However, a large maximum spread
increases surface energy available for recoil and re-
bound in case of a high contact angle. A droplet with
low surface tension (here an isopropanol droplet)
splashes at smaller Weber numbers than a droplet
with higher surface tension (a water droplet) on the
same smooth plate. The lamella splashing occurs in
the Weber number range above the critical one in the
spreading process. The critical Weber number de-
creases with decreasing surface tension. However, the
Weber number alone is not able to discern the impact
outcome, since an isopropanol droplet splashes on the
smooth glass at a Weber number of about 300, while
a water droplet does not splash on the smooth glass
at a Weber number of 1080. The surface roughness
e€ect lowers the critical Weber number. A water
droplet splashes at a Weber number of about 390 on
rough glass. Also, surface roughness a€ects the max-
imum and ®nal spreading diameters of a droplet. A
droplet with higher viscosity produces a smaller
maximum spread, because the higher viscous dissipa-
tion decreases the rate of spread. Moreover, a viscous
droplet approaches its maximum spread in a shorter
time.
510  Sikalo
S.  et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 25 (2002) 503±510
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the DAAD (Deutsche
Akademische Austauschdienst) for supporting

Sefko 
Sikalo through a research scholarship and the
DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) for support
through the projects Tr194/10 and Tr194/12.
References
[1] S. Chandra, C.T. Avedisian, On the collision of a droplet with a
solid surface, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 432 (1991) 13±41.
[2] M. Pasandideh-Fard, Y.M. Qiao, S. Chandra, J. Mostaghimi,
Capillary e€ect during droplet impact on a solid surface, Phys.
Fluids 8 (1996) 650±659.
[3] G. Trapaga, J. Szekely, Mathematical modelling of the isothermal
impingement of liquids in spraying processes, Metall. Trans. 22B
(1991) 901.
[4] J. Fukai, Z. Zhao, D. Poulikakos, C.M. Megaridis, O. Miyatake,
Modelling of the deformation of a liquid droplet impinging upon
a ¯at surface, Phys. Fluids A 5 (11) (1993) 2588±2599.
[5] J. Fukai, Y. Shiiba, T. Yamamoto, O. Miyatake, D. Poulikakos,
C.M. Megaridis, Z. Zhao, Wetting e€ects on the spreading of a
liquid droplet colliding with a ¯at surface: experiment and
modeling, Phys. Fluids A 7 (2) (1995) 236±247.
[6] M. Bussmann, J. Mostaghimi, S. Chandra, On a three-dimen-
sional volume tracking model of droplet impact, Phys. Fluids 11
(6) (1999) 1406±1417.
[7] M. Bussmann, S. Chandra, J. Mostaghimi, Modeling the splash of
a droplet impacting a solid surface, Phys. Fluids 12 (12) (2000)
3121±3132.
[8] W.I. Geldorp, R. Rioboo, S. Jakirlic, S. Muzaferija, C. Tropea,
Numerical and experimental drop impact on solid dry surfaces, in:
M. Archambault, G. Smallwood (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Liquid Atom. and Spray Systems,
Pasadena, CA, July, 2000, pp. 16±20.
[9] T. Mao, D.C.S. Kuhn, H. Tran, Spread and rebound of liquid
droplets upon impact on ¯at surfaces, AIChE J. 43 (1997) 2169±
2179.
[10] X. Zhang, O.A. Basaran, Dynamic surface tension e€ects in
impact of a drop with a solid surface, J. Colloid Interf. Sci 187
(1997) 166±178.
[11] M. Marengo, R. Rioboo, S.  Sikalo,
 C. Tropea, Time evolution of
droplet spreading onto dry, solid surfaces, in: A.J. Yule (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Liquid
Atom. and Spray Systems, Manchester, UK, 6±8 June, 1998, pp.
108±113.
[12] M. Marengo, S  Sikalo,
 C. Tropea, Impact of drops on inclined,
dry, cold surfaces, in: A.J. Yule (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Liquid Atom. and Spray Systems,
Manchester, UK, 6±8 June, 1998, pp. 114±121.
[13] R.E. Ford, C.G.L. Furmidge, Impact and spreading of spray
drops on foliar surfaces in Wetting, Soc. Chem. Ind. Monogr. 25
(1967) 417±432.