Dynamic of Water Droplet Impacting on a Hydrophilic Surface Accompanied With Stagnation Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Droplet impact on solid surfaces has been extensively reported in the literature, however the effect of accompanying air flow on the outcome of impacting droplet has yet to be addressed and analyzed which is similar to real scenario of impacting water droplet on aircraft’s leading edge at in-flight icing conditions. This study addresses the net effect of airflow (i.e. stagnation and the resultant shear flow) on the impacting water droplet with the same droplet impact velocity which is exposed to different airspeeds. In order to provide stagnation flow, a droplet accelerator was built which can generate different airspeeds up to 20 m/s. Droplet impact behavior accompanied with stagnation flow on a polished aluminum surface with a contact angle of 70° was investigated by high speed photography. 2.5 mm water droplet size with impact velocities of 2, 2.5 and 3 m/s which correspond to non-splashing regime of impacts are exposed to three different regimes of air speeds namely 0 (i.e. still air case), 10, and 20 m/s. It was observed that when droplet reaches to its maximum spreading diameter, some fingered shape at the end of spreading lamella (i.e. Rayleigh-Taylor instability) is appeared. When stagnation flow is present these fingered shape droplets are exposed to the generated shear flow close to the substrate (i.e. Homann flow approach) causes a droplet break up while complete non-splashing regime is observed in still air case. In spite of the fact that maximum spreading diameter is not largely affected by air flow compare to still air case, droplet height variation is significantly reduced by about 70 percent for strong stagnation flow (i.e. 20 m/s) which generates non-recoiling condition resulting in the thin film formation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".