Numerical study of droplet impingement and spreading on a moving surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation of an asymmetric lamella when a drop impacts a moving surface has been observed, but the underlying mechanism is not fully understood. In this study, we implemented a coupled level-set and volume-of-fluid method to simulate the asymmetric spreading of a drop on a moving surface. The dynamic contact angle model was used, with the capillary number calculated from the relative velocity at the contact line. The numerical method was validated with experimental data from the literature, and the spreading dynamics were also analyzed. The results indicate that the current method yields accurate predictions for lamella spreading, with a relative error in lamella width of less than 5%. This study reveals that the moving surface affects the spreading through the shear stress transferred from the surface to the liquid and the translation motion of the surface. Shear stress causes the lamella to either stretch or squeeze and the translation motion of the surface results in the advancing and receding phases existing together. These mechanisms lead to asymmetric spreading, and the asymmetricity of the lamella increases with the surface velocity and liquid viscosity. When the surface velocity is small, the effect of shear stress and translational motion only causes a translation of the lamella with no asymmetric spreading.
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".