Machine learning-based splash prediction model for drops impact on dry solid surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of drops on dry solid surfaces has important applications in engineering. The post-impact behavior of drops can be classified into non-splash and splash, and there is a lack of splash prediction models that well consider the independent and coupled effects of liquid properties, drop impact characteristics, and surface properties. In this study, machine learning methods of Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) are applied to build splash prediction models and analyze the effects of different features. The RF model achieves good prediction accuracy and identifies the roughness R*, Weber number We, Reynolds number Re, and contact angle θeq as the most influential parameters, with decreasing importance. The interpretability analysis shows the increasing splashing tendency with increasing We, Re, and R* and decreasing cos θeq, and a special case of non-splash by drops impact on hydrophobic surfaces with cos θeq ≈ −0.45 is found, which can be explained by the coupled effects of drop and surface features. The classical splash prediction model, K-parameter model, is improved by SVM in an explicit form and considering the effects of liquid properties, drop impact characteristics, and surface properties. The improved K-parameter model has good performance for surfaces with various roughness and wettability, and its prediction accuracy reaches 86.49%, which is significantly higher than 67.57% of the K-parameter model, 46.49% of the Riboux and Gordillo model, and 66.10% of the Zhang model. This study is expected to provide valuable insight into the control of non-splash or splash of drops according to different requirements during applications.
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".