Swansea 2007
Drop Impact and Spreading on Surfaces of Variable WettabilityDrop Impact and Spreading on Surfaces of Variable Wettability
J.E Sprittles
Y.D. Shikhmurzaev
Bonn 2007
Swansea 2007
Motivation
• Drop impact and spreading occurs in many industrial processes.
• 100 million inkjet printers sold yearly.
• NEW: Inkjet printing of electronic circuits.
• Why study the ‘old problem’ of drops spreading on surfaces?
Swansea 2007
Worthington 1876 – First Experiments
Swansea 2007
Worthington’s Sketches
Millimetre sized drops of milk on smoked glass.
Swansea 2007
Modern Day Experiments (mm drops of water)
Courtesy of Romain Rioboo
Swansea 2007
Xu et al 03 Drops don’t splash at the top of Everest!
Swansea 2007
Renardy 03 et al - Pyramidal Drops
• Impact of oscillating water drops on super hydrophobic substrates
1
2 3
4
Swansea 2007
The Simplest Problem
• How does a drops behaviour depend on:
fluid properties,
drop speed,
drop size,.. etc?
Spread Factor
Apex Height
Contact Angle
a
0U
d
Swansea 2007
The Contact Angle
• In equilibrium the angle defines the wettability of a solid-liquid combination.
• How should we describe it in a dynamic situation?
2
More Wettable (Hydrophilic)More Wettable (Hydrophilic)
Less Wettable (Hydrophobic)Less Wettable (Hydrophobic)
Solid 1 Solid 2
1 2
Swansea 2007
Modelling of Drop Impact and Spreading Phenomena
• The Moving Contact Line Problem
• Conventional Approaches and
their Drawbacks
• The Shikhmurzaev Model
Swansea 2007
The Moving Contact Line Problem
Liquid
Inviscid Gas
Contact line
d
Contact angle
Solid
Swansea 2007
The Moving Contact Line Problem
No-SlipImpermeability
Kinematic condition Dynamic condition
Navier-StokesContinuity
d
Contact angle prescribed
• No solution!!!
Swansea 2007
The Conventional Approach
These are treated separately by:
1) Modifying the no-slip condition near the Contact Line (CL) to allow slip, e.g.
2) Prescribing the Contact Angle as a function of various parameters, e.g.
y
u
u
One must:1) Allow a solution to be obtained.2) Describe the macroscopic contact angle.
cd u3
Swansea 2007
Experiments Show This Is Wrong…
• Can one describe the contact angle as a function of the parameters?
“There is no universal expression to relate contact angle with contact line speed”.
(Bayer and Megaridis 06)
“There is no general correlation of the dynamic contact angle as a function of surface characteristics, droplet fluid and diameter and impact velocity.”
(Sikalo et al 02)
Swansea 2007
As in Curtain Coating
Used to industrially coat materials.
Conventional models:
Fixed substrate speed => Unique contact angle
Swansea 2007
‘Hydrodynamic Assist of Dynamic Wetting’
The contact angle depends on the flow field.
See: Blake et al 1994, Blake et al 1999, Clarke et al 2006
Swansea 2007
Angle Also Dependent On The Geometry: Flow Through a Channel
• The contact angle is dependent on d and U.
(Ngan & Dussan 82)
U
U
d
d
Conclusion:
Angle is determined by the flow field
Swansea 2007
The Shikhmuraev Model’s Predictions
Unlike conventional models:
• The contact angle is determined by the flow field.
• No stagnation region at the contact line.
• No infinite pressure at the contact line
=> Numerics easier
Swansea 2007
Shikhmurzaev ModelWhat is it?
• Generalisation of the classical boundary conditions.
• Considers the interface as a thermodynamic system with mass, momentum and energy exchange with the bulk.
• Used to relieve paradoxes in modelling of capillary flows such as …..
Swansea 2007
Some Previous Applications
Swansea 2007
The Shikhmurzaev Model Qualitatively (Flow near the contact line)
lg
sl
Solid
Gas
Width of interfacial layer
Liquid
Swansea 2007
Shikhmurzaev Model
• Solid-liquid and liquid-gas interfaces have an asymmetry of forces acting on them.
• In the continuum approximation the dynamics of the interfacial layer should be applied at a surface.
• Surface properties survive even when the interface's thickness is considered negligible.
Surface tension
Surface density
Surface velocity s
s
v
Swansea 2007
Shikhmurzaev Model
231
2s221
s11
cos
0evev
d
ss
)u(v4)41(
)v(
n)vu(
0v
0)nnI(n
nnn
||||11
11s11
1
11s1
s1
1
1
s
se
ss
s
se
s
t
ft
f
P
P
Uv
)Uu(v
)v(
n)vu(
)Uu()nnI(n
2
2||||21
||2
22s22
2
22s2
||||221
s
s
se
ss
s
se
s
t
P
On liquid-solid interfaces:On free surfaces: At contact lines:
θd
e2
e1
n
n
f (r, t )=0
22,12,12,1 )( ss ba
Swansea 2007
What if (the far field) ?
ed
22,12,12,1 )( s
ees
eeee ba
Uv
)Uu(v
Uu
)Uu()nnI(n
2
||||21
||2
||||
s
s
P On liquid-solid interfaces:On free surfaces: At contact lines:
see
s2,12,1
uv
uv
0u
0)nnI(n
nnn
1
||||1
1
s
s
e
ft
f
P
P
Swansea 2007
Summary
• Classical Fluid Mechanics => No Solution
• Conventional Methods Are Fundamentally Flawed
• The Shikhmurzaev Model Should Be Investigated
Swansea 2007
Our Approach
• Bulk: Incompressible Navier-Stokes equations
• Boundary: Conventional Model (for a start!)
• Use Finite Element Method.
• Assume axisymmetric motion (unlike below!).
Swansea 2007
Numerical Approach
• Use the finite element method:
Velocity and Free Surface quadratic
Pressure Linear
• The ‘Spine Method’ is used to represent the free surface
• ~2000 elements
• Second order time integration
Swansea 2007
The Spine Method(Scriven and co-workers)
The Spine
Nodes fixed on solid.
Nodes define free surface.
Swansea 2007
Code Validation
• Consider large deformation oscillations of viscous liquid drops.
• Compare with results from previous investigations, Basaran 91 and Meradji 01.
)cos(1)( nn Pfr Microgravity Experiment
• Compare aspect ratio of drop as a function of time.
• Starting position is
Swansea 2007
Second Harmonic – Large Deformation
For Re=100, f2 = 0.9
Swansea 2007
Second Harmonic – Large Deformation (cont)
• Aspect ratio of the drop as a function of time.
• A damped wave.
Swansea 2007
Fourth Harmonic – Large Deformation
For Re=100, f4 = 0.9
Swansea 2007
Drop Impact on a Hydrophilic (Wettable) Substrate
Re=100, We=10, β = 100, .30s
Swansea 2007
The Experiment – Water on GlassCourtesy of Dr A. Clarke (Kodak)
Swansea 2007
Drop Impact on a Hydrophobic (non-wettable) Substrate
Re=100, We=10, β = 100, .120s
Swansea 2007
The Experiment – Water on HydrophobeCourtesy of Dr A. Clarke (Kodak)
Swansea 2007
High Speed Impact
Radius = 25 m, Impact Speed = 12.2 m/s
Re=345, We=51, β = 100, .67s
Swansea 2007
Non-Spherical Drops on Hydrophobic Substrates
Radius = 1.75mm, Impact Speed = 0.4 m/s,Re=1435, We=8, .
175s
Swansea 2007
Impact + Spreading of Non-Spherical Dropson Hydrophobic Substrates
Swansea 2007
Impact + Spreading of Non-Spherical Dropson Hydrophobic Substrates
The Pyramid!
Swansea 2007
Impact + Spreading of Non-Spherical Dropson Hydrophobic Substrates
Experiment shows pinch off of drops from the apex
Swansea 2007
Impact + Spreading of Non-Spherical Dropson Hydrophobic Substrates
As in experiments, drop becomes toroidal
Swansea 2007
Current Work
• Quantitatively compare results against experiment.
• Incorporate the Shikhmurzaev model.
• Consider variations in wettability ….
Swansea 2007
How to Incorporate Variations in Wettability?
• Technologically, why are flows over patterned surfaces important?
• What are the issues with modelling such flows?
• How will a single change in wettability affect a flow?
• How about intermittent changes?
Swansea 2007
Using Patterned Surfaces
• Manipulate free surface flows using unbalanced surface tension forces.
Swansea 2007
Mock 05 et al - Drop Impact onto Chemically Patterned Surfaces
• Pattern a surface with areas of differing wettability.
• ‘Corrects’ deposition.
Swansea 2007
Mock 05 et al - Drop Impact onto Chemically Patterned Surfaces
• Pattern a surface to ‘correct’ deposition.Courtesy of Professor Roisman
Swansea 2007
The Problem• What if there is no free surface?
• Do variations in the wettability affect an adjacent flow?
1 2
2
Solid 1 Solid 2
What happens in this region?
Shear flow in the far fieldShear flow in the far field
Swansea 2007
Molecular Dynamics Simulations
Courtesy of Professor N.V. Priezjev
More wettable CompressedMore wettable CompressedLess wettable RarefiedLess wettable Rarefied
Swansea 2007
Hydrodynamic Modelling:Defining Wettability
• Defining wettability
ee 1lg1 cos
e1
lg
e1
• The Young equation:
The contact lineThe contact line
Solid 1
Swansea 2007
Hydrodynamic Modelling:Which Model?
• No-Slip
No effect
• Slip Models (e.g. Navier Slip)
There is no theta!
• A Problem..
We have no tools!
Swansea 2007
Qualitative Picture
e1 e2
BulkBulk
• Fluid particles are driven into areas of differing wettability.
• Surface properties take a finite time to relax to their new equilibrium state.
• What happens when flow drives fluid particles along the interface?
• Mass, momentum and energy exchange between surface and bulk.
• The process of interface formation.
0
2
Solid 1 Solid 2
• Consider region of interest.
Finite thicknes: For Visualisation Only
Finite thicknes: For Visualisation Only
Swansea 2007
Interface Formation Equations – Hydrodynamic of Interfaces
• Surface density is related to surface tension:
,)0(ss
.2,1;
coslg0 iiess
ie
• Equilibrium surface density defines wettability:
• Surface possesses integral properties such as a surface tension, ; surface velocity, and surface density, . sv
s
Equation of
State
Equation of
State
Input of Wettability
Input of Wettability
Swansea 2007
The Shikhmurzaev Model:Constant Wettability
Const se
s
BulkBulk
Interfacial Layer: For Visualisation Only. In the continuum limit..
Interfacial Layer: For Visualisation Only. In the continuum limit..
• If then we have Navier Slip
0n.u
t.utuun
u.t
Swansea 2007
Solid-Liquid Boundary Conditions – Shikhmurzaev Equations
.2
tu2
1tv
,tu2
1uun
s
ses
e
s
ses
e
s
BulkBulk
tu
Tangential velocityTangential velocity
Surface
velocity
Surface
velocity
Solid facing side of interface: No-slip
Solid facing side of interface: No-slip
se
se
s
ntLayer is for VISUALISATION only. In the continuum limit…
Layer is for VISUALISATION only. In the continuum limit…
Swansea 2007
Solid-Liquid Boundary Conditions – Shikhmurzaev Equations
.v
,nu
s
se
ss
se
s
BulkBulk
nutv s s
es sv
Continuity of surface mass
Continuity of surface mass
Normal velocityNormal velocity
Solid facing side of interface: Impermeability
Solid facing side of interface: Impermeability
Layer is for VISUALISATION only. In the continuum limit…
Layer is for VISUALISATION only. In the continuum limit…
Swansea 2007
Problem Formulation
• 2D, steady flow of an incompressible, viscous, Newtonian fluid over a stationary flat solid surface (y=0), driven by a shear in the far field.
• Bulk– Navier Stokes equations:
)vu, (u
• Boundary Conditions– Shear flow in the far field, which, using
gives:
.uuu,0u 2 p
.as0, 22
yxvSy
u
Swansea 2007
Results - Streamlines• Consider solid 1 (x<0) more wettable than solid 2 (x>0).
• Coupled, nonlinear PDEs were solved using the finite element method.
Swansea 2007
Results – Different Solid Combinations
• Consider different solid combinations.
110,10:3
110,60:2
60,10:1
21
21
21
ee
ee
ee
Swansea 2007
Results – Size of The Effect
eeJ 21 coscos
• Consider the normal flux out of the interface, per unit time, J.
• We find:
• The constant of proportionality is dependent on the fluid and the magnitude of the shear applied.
Swansea 2007
Results - The Generators of Slip
• Variations in slip are mainly caused by variations in surface tension.
1) Deviation of shear stress on the interface from equilibrium.
2) Surface tension gradients.
1) Deviation of shear stress on the interface from equilibrium.
2) Surface tension gradients.
Swansea 2007
Periodically Patterned Surface
• Consider Solid 1 More Wettable.
• Consider a=1 -> Strips Have Equal Width.
Swansea 2007
Results - Streamlines
Solid 2 less wettableSolid 2 less wettable
Qualitative agreementQualitative agreement
Swansea 2007
Results – Velocity Profiles
Tangential (slip) velocity varies around its equilibrium value of u=9.8.
Tangential (slip) velocity varies around its equilibrium value of u=9.8.
Fluxes are both in and out of the interfacial layer. Overall mass is conserved.
Fluxes are both in and out of the interfacial layer. Overall mass is conserved.
Swansea 2007
Further Work
Compare results with molecular dynamics simulations.
Devise experiments to test predictions.
Fully investigate periodic case.
Single transition investigation is in:
Sprittles & Shikhmurzaev, Phys. Rev. E 76, 021602 (2007).
Swansea 2007
Thanks!
Swansea 2007
Numerical Analysis of Formula for J
Shapes are numerical results.
Lines represent predicted flux
Shapes are numerical results.
Lines represent predicted flux
Swansea 2007
Interface Formation Equations + Input of Wettability
se2
se1
se
x
,.tanh2
1
2
11221 l
xse
se
se
se
se
Transition in wettability centred at x=y=0.
Transition in wettability centred at x=y=0.
Input of wettability
Input of wettability
Swansea 2007
Surface Equation of State
)( :2
)( :1
0
2
ss
ss ba
Break-up Dynamicwetting
Swansea 2007
Deviation of The Actual Contact Angle => Non Equilibrium Surface Tensions
Left: Curtain Coating Experiments (+) vs Theory (lines)Blake et al 1999 Wilson et al 2006
Right: Molecular Dynamics Koplik et al 1989
Swansea 2007
Comparison of Theory With Experiment
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
d
C a
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
d
Ca
Perfect wetting (Hoffman 1975; Ström et al. 1990; Fermigier & Jenffer 1991)
Partial wetting (□: Hoffman 1975;
: Burley & Kennedy 1976; , ,: Ström et al. 1990)
It has been shown that the theory is in good agreementwith all experimental data published in the literature.
Swansea 2007
Mechanism of Relaxation
s/P. 10-103 , 67
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
60
90
120
150
180d
C a
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
60
90
120
150
180
d
Ca
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
60
90
120
150
180
d
C a
Comparison of the theory with experimentson fluids with different viscosity (1.5-672 cP) confirms that the mechanism of the interface formation is diffusive in nature (J. Coll. Interface Sci. 253,196 (2002)). Estimates for parameters of the modelhave been obtained, in particular, showingthat for water-glycerol mixtures one has:
where