Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 54 (2014) 38–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/etfs

Experimental investigation of biofuel drop impact on stainless steel

surface
S. Sen, V. Vaikuntanathan, D. Sivakumar ⇑
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Blends of conventional fuels such as Jet-A1 (aviation kerosene) and diesel with bio-derived components,
Received 28 October 2013 referred to as biofuels, are gradually replacing the conventional fuels in aircraft and automobile engines.
Received in revised form 24 January 2014 There is a lack of understanding on the interaction of spray drops of such biofuels with solid surfaces. The
Accepted 24 January 2014
present study is an experimental investigation on the impact of biofuel drops onto a smooth stainless
Available online 3 February 2014
steel surface. The biofuel is a mixture of 90% commercially available camelina-derived biofuel and 10%
aromatics. Biofuel drops were generated using a syringe–hypodermic needle arrangement. On demand,
Keywords:
the needle delivers an almost spherical drop with drop diameter in the range 2.05–2.15 mm. Static wet-
Biofuel
Camelina
ting experiments show that the biofuel drop completely wets the stainless steel surface and exhibits an
Drop impact equilibrium contact angle of 5.6°. High speed video camera was used to capture the impact dynamics of
Spreading biofuel drops with Weber number ranging from 20 to 570. The spreading dynamics and maximum
spreading diameter of impacting biofuel drops on the target surface were analyzed. For the impact of high
Weber number biofuel drops, the spreading law suggests b  s0.5 where b is the spread factor and s, the
nondimensionalized time. The experimentally observed trend of maximum spread factor, bmax of came-
lina biofuel drop on the target surface with We compares well with the theoretically predicted trend from
Ukiwe–Kwok model. After reaching bmax, the impacting biofuel drop undergoes a prolonged sluggish
spreading due to the high wetting nature of the camelina biofuel-stainless steel system. As a result,
the final spread factor is found to be a little more than bmax.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Understanding the mechanisms of fuel spray–wall interaction
process is of importance in the design of engine combustors. Often
the interaction process results in an increase in unburned hydro-
carbons, secondary atomization, wall-film formation, etc. Several
single-drop impact studies have been devoted to understand the
problem of spray–wall interaction [1–3]. Although any direct use
of results arrived at from single-drop impact studies to spray
impingement problems poses limitations [4], the studies of sin-
gle-drop impact still provide valuable tools to the modeling of
spray impingement phenomenon [5].
In addition to fuel spray impingement encountered in engine
combustors, the single-drop impact on a solid surface has been
studied in the context of numerous practical applications such as
ink-jet printing [6], droplet-based manufacturing [7,8], and ther-
mal spray coating [9]. On a solid surface, the dynamics of drop im-
pact is primarily governed by the competition between liquid
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 80 2293 3022.
E-mail address: dskumar@aero.iisc.ernet.in (D. Sivakumar).
inertia (resulting from the droplet kinetic energy), surface (result-
ing from the fluid interfaces), and viscous (resulting from the drop-
surface interaction) forces. An impacting liquid drop spreads on the
surface axisymmetrically during the initial stages of drop impact
process. This regime of drop spreading is dominated by the drop
inertia. The drop reaches a maximum diameter at the end of inertia
dominated spreading and then starts to recede. Often, depending
on the characteristics of the solid surface and liquid properties,
the drop liquid undergoes a series of post-spreading oscillations
and reaches an equilibrium final drop diameter on the surface. Pre-
vious studies characterized the drop impact phenomenon in terms
of Weber number, We, which compares the inertia to the capillary
forces, Ohnesorge number, Oh, which compares the viscous to the
capillary forces, and Reynolds number, Re, which compares the
inertia to the viscous forces [3,10].
Rioboo et al. [11,12] studied the temporal evolution of drop im-
pact phenomenon by altering several control parameters such as
drop impact velocity, drop diameter, liquid viscosity, surface ten-
sion, surface wettability and mean surface roughness. The effect
of control parameters on the phenomenon is seen mainly in the
spreading and receding processes as well as the final outcome of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2014.01.014
0894-1777/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 S. Sen et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 54 (2014) 38–46
Nomenclature
Re Reynolds number
Oh Ohnesorge number
We Weber number
Es,o surface energy of the drop at the tip of needle (J)
Es,i surface energy of the drop just prior to impact (J)
Wd work done in overcoming resistance due to drag (J)
Cf drag co-efficient
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
k constant
Dmax maximum spreading diameter (mm)
Do diameter of the drop before impact (mm)
S sphericity of the drop before impact
Uo drop impact velocity (m/s)
do outer diameter of the needle (mm)
H impact height (mm)
m mass of the drop (kg)
Ra mean surface roughness (lm)
t time elapsed from the start of the drop impact (ms)
tmax time taken to reach the maximum diameter (ms)
tf time taken to reach final equilibrium of drop impact-
driven processes (ms)
<dD/dt>spr average spreading velocity (m/s)
impacting drops. The maximum spreading diameter, Dmax of an
impacting drop increases with the increasing We and Re [13]. Sev-
eral studies have analyzed the variation of Dmax with the control
parameters theoretically using the energy balance approach
[2,14–20]. These models predict Dmax reasonably well. For low vis-
cosity drop impacts, Clanet et al. [21] found that Dmax = DoWe0.25
with a pre-factor of 0.9. A recent work by Bayer and Megaridis
[22] on drop impact on different solid surfaces varying in their sur-
face wettability proposed that Dmax = 0.72 Do(ReWe0.5)0.14. Ukiwe
and Kwok [17] proposed a model for Dmax by incorporating the
solid–liquid and solid–vapor interfacial energies in the surface
energy term of the energy balance equation. The predictions of
Dmax obtained from the new model agree very well with the exper-
imental measurements of Dmax for the impact of moderate to high
We water and formamide drops on well-prepared flat polymer sur-
faces. The effect of surface temperature on drop impact dynamics
on heated surfaces, which is of relevance in practical applications
such as spray cooling, has been studied by various research groups
focusing on various aspects such as morphological dynamics – film
boiling, nucleate boiling, and contact boiling – of liquid drop
[2,23,24]; Leidenfrost phenomena and its characteristics such as
drop contact time [25], restitution coefficient [26], as well as
how it is affected by surface roughness, drop impact velocity,
surface inclination, and oxidation layer thickness on surface
[24,27–29]; and maximum drop spreading [24,25,28]. Numerical
simulations of drop impact phenomenon by considering the fluid
dynamics of the spreading lamella have been reported in the liter-
ature [18,30–35]. The comprehensive reviews of drop impact
phenomenon by Rein [36], Yarin [37], and Marengo et al. [38] pro-
vide further details associated with the drop impact phenomenon.
The drop impact dynamics of bio-derived fuel drops on solid
surfaces at ambient room temperature is the topic of present
investigation. Bio-derived alternative fuels, produced from bio-
mass sources such as camelina, jatropha, and algae (referred as
synthetic paraffinic kerosene, SPK), can significantly reduce en-
gine-related emissions produced by the aviation industry. The
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has already ap-
proved the use of a 50% blend of Jet A-1 (conventional aviation ker-
osene) and SPK in aircraft engines. Currently, camelina-derived
39
Greek symbols
q density of biofuel (kg/m3)
r surface tension of biofuel (N/m)
l viscosity of biofuel (Pa s)
hY Young’s contact angle of biofuel drop on solid surface
he equilibrium contact angle of biofuel drop on solid sur-
face
qair density of air (kg/m3)
cSV solid–vapor interfacial tension
cSL solid–liquid interfacial tension
a1 fraction of drop weight taking part in the drop detach-
ment process
b spread factor
bmax maximum spread factor
bf final spread factor
s non-dimensionalised time
smax non-dimensionalised time to reach the maximum
diameter
a slope of b versus s in log–log scale
<db/ds>spr average normalized spreading velocity
biofuel is being considered as a future alternative fuel for airplanes
[39] and several studies have been reported in recent years on the
characteristics of camelina-derived biofuel in the context of
aircraft engine technology [40–43]. Limited studies have been
reported on the impact of hydrocarbon fuel drops [2,44]. It has
been observed that the impact dynamics of such fuel drops exhib-
its no droplet receding owing to the reduced surface tension.
The current development and rapid advancement on the use of
bio-derived fuels in the engine combustors necessitates an
in-depth analysis of such fuel behavior on several fundamental
research topics including spray and drop impact phenomena. The
present study investigates the normal impact of bio-derived came-
lina fuel drops released from a hypodermic needle on a smooth
stainless steel surface at ambient room temperature. The impact
velocity of drop was varied in the range 0.6–3.0 m/s. Quantitative
experimental measurements on the diameter of drop released from
the needle, drop spreading characteristics, maximum spreading
diameter, and final drop diameter were obtained. The applicability
of existing models for the estimation of some of the abovemen-
tioned quantities for impact of camelina fuel drops was explored.
2. Experimental details
2.1. Details of drop liquid (camelina biofuel)
As mentioned earlier, camelina biofuel is being considered as an
alternative aviation fuel. It is derived using hydroprocessing of
camelina seed oil which go through the conventional refinery pro-
cess to deoxygenate and remove undesirable materials including
nitrogen, sulphur and residual metals and break down carbon
chain lengths. It was procured from UOP (www.uop.com). Since
camelina biofuel is free from any aromatic content, 10% aromatics
was added with camelina biofuel obtained from UOP to meet ASTM
D1655 aviation fuel specifications. The blending and characteriza-
tion of fuel was carried out at Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL)
and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). The physi-
cal properties of fuel such as density, dynamic viscosity, and sur-
face tension are known to influence the dynamics of drop impact
40 S. Sen et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 54 (2014) 38–46

process. The measured values of physical properties at 25 °C are: 2.15 1.2

density, q = 771.9 kg/m3, dynamic viscosity, l = 1.26  103 Pa s, α1 = 0.9
and surface tension, r = 0.0248 N/m.

2.2. Experimental setup for drop impact study 2.10 1.1

Do (mm)

S
The experiments of camelina fuel drop on the target surface
were carried out in an experimental setup comprising of a liquid α1 = 1.0
drop delivery system, a target surface table, and a high-speed video 2.05 1.0
acquisition system.
A complete description of the experimental setup is given in S Experiments S = 1.0
Vaikuntanathan et al. [45]. Camelina fuel drops were generated Do Experiments Eq. (1)
using a flat-tipped hypodermic needle with internal and external 2.00 0.9
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
diameters of 0.27 mm and 0.45 mm, respectively. The fuel drops
H (mm)
were pinched-off by gravity from the hypodermic needle tip and
allowed to fall freely onto the target solid surface kept at the ambi- Fig. 2. Experimentally measured drop size, Do and sphericity, S of camelina biofuel
ent room temperature of around 25 °C. The target solid surface of drop just prior to impact on target surface with the impact height, H. Theoretical
size 50 mm  25 mm  5 mm was prepared using stainless steel predictions of Do for two different values of a are also shown by dotted green lines.

material (SS-304 grade). The target surface underwent diamond

paste polishing process to obtain mirror-polished smooth stainless
through a necking process (6th and 7th images in Fig. 1), and deliv-
steel surface. The measured mean surface roughness, Ra (obtained
ers a fuel drop as seen in Fig. 1.
using Wyko NT9080 optical profiler system), of the target surface
The diameter of biofuel drops released from the needle tip, kept
was in the range of 0.013–0.040 microns. The dynamics of an
at a height from the stainless steel target surface, was measured
impacting drop was recorded using a high-speed video camera
just above the target surface from high speed video images. A set
(Redlake Y4) at a frame rate of 6000 fps and exposure of 5 ls.
of three images of drop were chosen for measurement. The varia-
The size of an impacting drop prior to impact, Do and the velocity
tion of average drop diameter, Do with the impact height, H,
of an impacting drop, Uo were measured using the images obtained
defined as the distance between the hypodermic needle tip and
from high-speed camera. From the captured high-speed motion
the target surface, is shown in Fig. 2. The error bars represent the
pictures of drop impact, the temporal variations of the impacting
maximum deviation from the average drop diameter. Fig. 2 shows
drop parameters were obtained using image processing and analy-
that the Do lies in the range 2.05–2.15 mm. The theoretical predic-
sis. The time, elapsed from the start of drop impact, t measured
tion of Do considering a balance between the surface tension force
from the instant at which the impacting drop touches the top sur-
holding the drop onto the needle tip and the weight of fuel drop
face of the stainless steel surface was estimated from the camera
trying to detach it from the needle tip is expressed as [46]
frame rate. The experiments of drop impact were conducted for
15 different values of Uo in the range 0.6–3.0 m/s.
 13
6rdo
Do ¼ ð1Þ
3. Results and discussion a1 qg

3.1. Drop formation process
Fig. 1 shows an image sequence, obtained from high speed dig-
ital videos captured during experiments, highlighting the forma-
tion of a camelina fuel drop from the flat-tipped stainless steel
hypodermic needle. The blue-dashed line shown in the images
indicate the location of the needle tip. It is clear from the first three
images that the biofuel issuing out of the needle tip spreads up-
wards along the outer surface of the needle owing to low surface
tension of fuel and its high wetting on stainless steel. As more fuel
flows from the needle tip, the mass of fuel attached to the outer
surface of needle increases reaching a critical value required to
overcome surface tension forces exerted on the drop. With time,
the drop slides down along the needle’s outer surface, reaches
the needle tip (4th to 6th images in Fig. 1), detaches from there
where do is the outer diameter of the needle, a1, the fraction of drop
weight taking part in the drop detachment process, and g, the accel-
eration due to gravity. The predicted value of Do using Eq. (1) is
shown in Fig. 2 as dashed lines for two different values of a1 (1.0
and 0.9). It is evident from Fig. 2 that the experimentally measured
and theoretically predicted values of Do show a satisfactory match
within the error limits of the experiment. Further, the experimen-
tally measured Do with varying H lie within the theoretical predic-
tions of Do obtained with a1 = 1.0 and a1 = 0.9. This suggests that
only a small mass of liquid is left attached to the needle tip when
the drop detachment occurs. Fig. 2 also shows the drop sphericity,
S defined as the ratio of minimum of drop diameters measured
along two orthogonal axes to their maximum, at different impact
heights. S values greater than 0.95 in Fig. 2 indicate that the drops
can be considered to be almost spherical.

Fig. 1. High speed image sequence showing the formation and detachment of camelina biofuel drop from hypodermic needle. The blue dotted horizontal line highlights the
position of needle tip.
 S. Sen et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 54 (2014) 38–46 41

3.5

3.0

2.5

Uo (m/s)
2.0

1.5
Needle tip with drop liquid
spread over its surface 1.0

0.5 Eq. (3)

~ 5.6o Equilibrium drop profile
e Experiments Eq. (4); Cf = 0.8
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Target surface (Smooth SS) H (mm)

Fig. 4. Variation of Uo with H and its comparison with theoretical equations

2 mm without and with the effect of drag force.

Fig. 3. Equilibrium configuration of camelina biofuel drop on smooth stainless steel overcome the resistance due to drag. By neglecting the deviation
surface obtained from static wetting experiment using sessile drop method. The of drop shape from sphere due to shape oscillations (Es,o = Es,i)
equilibrium contact angle, he is highlighted in the extracted drop profile.
and the drag force acting on the drop (Wd = 0), Eq. (2) is expressed
as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3.2. Wetting of target surface by camelina biofuel Uo ¼ 2gðH  Do Þ: ð3Þ

The equilibrium wetting of a 2.09 mm (diameter) biofuel drop
on the smooth stainless steel surface was experimentally mea-
sured through sessile drop method [47]. The needle tip was placed
vertically above and as close to the target surface as possible to en-
able gradual placement of the drop on the target surface without
any significant impact velocity. As soon as the biofuel drop adopts
equilibrium configuration on the target surface (<5 s), its image
was captured using a high resolution video microscope (Keyence).
This exercise was repeated 3–5 times to ensure repeatability of
measurements. The captured images are further analyzed using
image processing software, ImageJ to obtain the equilibrium con-
tact angle, he of camelina biofuel drop on the smooth stainless steel
surface. The average he of camelina biofuel drop on the smooth
stainless steel surface obtained from repeated trials was 5.6°
(±1.5°) which is indicative of the high wetting of biofuel drop on
stainless steel surface. Fig. 3 shows the equilibrium configuration
attained by a camelina biofuel drop on the target stainless steel
surface.
3.3. Measurements of drop impact velocity
The variation of Uo with H obtained using Eq. (3) is shown in
Fig. 4 as the continuous line. Range and Feuillebois [48] expressed
Uo without neglecting Wd as
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g  ffi
3 qair C f
Uo ¼ ð1  e2AðHDo Þ Þ; A¼ ; ð4Þ
A 4 qDo
where qair is the density of air and Cf, the drag coefficient. The var-
iation of Uo with H obtained using Eq. (4) with qair = 1.225 kg/m3
and Cf = 0.8 [48] is shown in Fig. 4 as the blue dashed line. It can
be seen from Fig. 4 that the experimental Uo closely follows the pre-
diction using Eq. (3) at moderate velocities. At higher Uo, the exper-
imental measurements start deviating from Eq. (3) and move closer
to Eq. (4) since drag force becomes significant at these velocities.
3.4. Impact dynamics of camelina biofuel drop on solid surface
The camelina biofuel drop delivered from the needle tip was
made to impact on the smooth stainless steel surface. The drop im-
pact conditions can be represented in the We–Oh regime map as
shown by open circles in Fig. 5. Here, We and Oh are the drop We-
ber number and Ohnesorge number, respectively and defined as

The impact velocity of drop, Uo in the present study was varied

by varying H. It was measured just prior to the impingement of
drop on the target surface by tracking the drop position from
1000
images captured using the high speed camera. The variation of Impact driven
experimentally measured Uo with H is shown in Fig. 4. Considering
100
Oh 2

an energy balance between two states of the drop – immediately I III

after pinch-off from the needle (state o), and just prior to impacting
e=

10
Highly viscous
Almost inviscid

the solid surface (state i) – gives the following.

W
We

1
1
mgðH  Do Þ þ Es;o ¼ mU 2o þ Es;i þ W d ð2Þ
2 0.1
In the above equation, the LHS corresponds to the total energy II IV
of the drop in state o with the first term being the potential energy 0.01
of the drop (with respect to a datum fixed at the centre of drop in Capillary driven
state i) and the second term corresponding to the surface (liquid– 1E-3
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
vapor interfacial) energy of the drop. The first term on the RHS of
Oh
Eq. (2) is the kinetic energy of drop and the second term corre-
sponds to the surface (liquid–vapor interfacial) energy of the drop Fig. 5. We–Oh regime map indicating the region where the current experimental
in state i. The third term is the work done by the falling drop to conditions fall.
42 S. Sen et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 54 (2014) 38–46

qU 2o Do l 5
We ¼ and Oh ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : ð5Þ
r qrDo
4
It is clear from Fig. 5 that all the present experimental drop im-
pact conditions fall under the impact-driven and almost inviscid
case. However, it should be noted that at different stages of drop 3
impact dynamics corresponding to a particular impact condition,

the dominance of various forces – inertia, viscous, capillary, and
wettability – on the dynamics will vary [12].
Fig. 6 shows the impact of camelina biofuel drop on the smooth
stainless surface at four different values of We. The images were
captured with the camera positioned at an angle of 50° with re-
spect to the target surface plane. The images presented in a row
show the deformation of camelina biofuel drop of a given We dur-
ing impact on the stainless steel surface. The time, elapsed from
the start of drop impact, t is increasing from left to right. Among
the rows, the images are so chosen that in each column the value
of t, corresponding to an image, is kept the same. For a given We,
it is observed from Fig. 6 that, as soon as the drop impacts on
the smooth surface, the drop liquid spreads out radially from the
impact point till a maximum drop spread is achieved on the sur-
face. In this process, a central lamella is created by the spreading
of the impacting drop mass (see 2nd and 3rd images in any row
of Fig. 6). This lamella is bounded by a thicker rim at its periphery,
the thickness of which is a function of the spreading rate of drop
front (three phase contact line, TPCL), the spreading rate of inner
edge of drop rim, and the mass flux from the thin lamella into
the rim [33].
Upon reaching the maximum drop spread (4th image in the first
row of Fig. 6), the inner edge of the outer rim starts to recoil to-
wards the impact point whereas the outer edge of outer rim (TPCL)
remains almost stationary. This results in an increase in the rim
width as seen from 5th image onwards in the first row of Fig. 6.
With further increase in t, the impacting drop gradually settles
down to a final equilibrium drop configuration (9th image in the
β
2
We = 25.0
We = 117.1
1 We = 222.1
We = 429.3
We = 560.3
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
τ
Fig. 7. The temporal variation of spread factor for camelina biofuel drop impact on
smooth stainless surface for five different values of We.
first row of Fig. 6). At higher We, splashing of the impacting drop,
characterized by the circumferential ejection of secondary droplets
from impacting drop, is observed (shown at the bottom of Fig. 6,
with the help of images with their background subtracted, for
We  560). The ejected secondary droplets fly radially away from
the impact location.
The dynamics of interaction between the impacting drop and
the target surface can be quantitatively explained using the mea-
surements of drop contact diameter on the surface, D (highlighted
in the last row of Fig. 6). Often, D is normalized with respect to Do
to obtain the spread factor, b. Fig. 7 shows the temporal variation of
b for camelina biofuel drop impacting on the smooth stainless steel
surface for the impact conditions presented in Fig. 6. The time, t in
X-axis of Fig. 7 is normalized with respect to the inertial time scale
Do/Uo as s = tUo/Do. The temporal variation of b can be sub-divided
into three regions depending on the forces that dominate the

t (ms) -0.043 1.867 3.028 6.013 8.667 8.834 32.816 57.265 81.151

(a) We = 25.0

Rim Lamella

(b) We = 222.1

(c) We = 429.3

D
(d) We = 560.3
5 mm

Secondary droplets ejected from impacting drop

Fig. 6. High speed image sequences showing the impact dynamics of camelina biofuel drop on smooth stainless steel surface for four different values of We. Each row of
images corresponds to a particular We (indicated on the right of each row) and among the rows along a particular column the time, t elapsed from the start of impact process
remains the same. t corresponding to each column is shown at the top of image. At We = 560.3, background subtracted images corresponding to early-time spreading of drop
on stainless steel surface are shown highlighting the ejection of secondary droplets from impacting camelina biofuel drop. Two scales are shown at the bottom left corner
since the camera was positioned at an angle of 50° to the plane of target surface.
 S. Sen et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 54 (2014) 38–46 43

impact dynamics [12]: initial kinematic phase, spreading phase, 5.0

and relaxation/equilibrium phase. The kinematic phase is defined
as the one where lamella formation and drop spreading are not 4.5
clearly observed during the very early stages of drop impact when
impact waves are seen propagating vertically over the impacting 4.0
drop surface [12]. This occurs at s < 0.1 [12].

βmax
The spreading phase corresponds to the formation and develop- 3.5
ment of a thin lamella, around the central impacting drop liquid,
surrounded by a thick rim (see 2nd and 3rd images of Fig. 6(b)). 3.0
Experiments
The temporal variation of b in this phase shows an increasing
1.73We0.14
trend, however, with a decreasing slope as time increases. The 2.5
Ukiwe-Kwok
dependence of b on s for each We was calculated by fitting the
Clanet et al.
spreading phase curve (s > 0.1) in log–log scale, corresponding to 2.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
each We, by a straight line giving a relation of the form b = ksa
We
where k and a are constants. Fig. 8(a) shows the variation of the
exponent a with We. The exponent decreases with increase in Fig. 9. The variation of bmax with We obtained for camelina drop impact on smooth
We tending to a value of 0.5 at higher We. This implies that the stainless steel surface. Comparison of the experimental trend with theoretical
spreading law during spreading phase at high We is similar to that models of Ukiwe and Kwok [17] and Clanet et al. [21] is also given along with the
best fit curve of experimental data.
in kinematic phase at any We. Fig. 8(b) shows the variation of
spreading velocity, <dD/dt>spr with We. The spreading velocity
was obtained as an average of the time-varying spreading velocity the scaling law bmax = We0.25 does not predict the experimental
by linearly fitting the temporal variation of spread factor in the measurements of bmax obtained in the present study accurately.
spreading phase. It is clear that the average normalized spreading The P values in the present study indicate a transitional regime
velocity, <db/ds>spr = <dD/dt>spr/Uo decreases with increase in We. where the effects of capillarity and viscosity have to be considered
This implies that the fraction of impact velocity utilized for spread- simultaneously as opposed to Clanet et al.’s scaling laws which
ing decreases with increase in We as more of the impact kinetic en- consider these effects separately in two different regimes. Using
ergy is lost in the form of viscous dissipation due to a larger extent energy balance approach, Ukiwe and Kwok [17] expressed bmax as
of spreading on the target solid surface. It is also interesting to note  
that the average spreading velocity at low We is more than Uo. A We
3ð1  cos hY Þ þ 4 pffiffiffiffiffiffi b3max  ðWe þ 12Þbmax þ 8 ¼ 0: ð6Þ
power law fit of the experimental measurements of spreading Re
velocity shows that <db/ds>spr varies as We0.19.
Here hY is the Young’s contact angle of drop in equilibrium on an
When the spreading velocity becomes zero, the corresponding
ideal (smooth) solid surface of the same material as the target sur-
drop spread factor is the maximum spread factor, bmax. Fig. 9 shows
face and is given by the Young’s equation as
the variation of bmax with We obtained for the impact of camelina
biofuel drop on smooth stainless steel surface. It is clear that bmax cSV  cSL
cos hY ¼ : ð7Þ
increases with We due to the increase in impact kinetic energy of r
the drop. We attempt to compare the experimental measurements We approximate hY by he measured in static wetting experi-
of bmax with that predicted by some of the well-known theoretical ments since the target surface is close to an ideal solid surface
models. As mentioned earlier, Clanet et al. [21] proposed that (Ra  40 nm). As shown in Fig. 9, the Ukiwe–Kwok model
bmax = We0.25 for drop impacts with the impact number, P = We/ (Eq. (6)) is seen to predict the experimental maximum spread
Re4/5 < 1 (capillary regime observed at low Uo, low l, and high r) factor better than the Clanet et al.’s [21] scaling law. Also shown
and bmax = Re0.2 for P > 1 (viscous regime); P values were less than in Fig. 9 is the best fit power law curve for the experimental
0.4 and greater than 4 in their study. The values of P are in the measurements of bmax which indicates a lower exponential
range 0.1–0.8 in the present study. However, as shown in Fig. 9, dependence of bmax on We (0.14 as opposed to 0.2–0.5 reported

(a) 1.0 5
4 We = 25.0
(b) 1.5 3
We = 25.0
3
2
2
β

1.2 β = 1.17τ + 0.78

β

<dβ /dτ >spr = <dD/dt>spr /Uo

0.8 0.65
1 β = 1.97τ 1

0
0.6 τ 1 2 3
0.9 0 1
τ
2 3
α

0.4 0.6

0.2 0.3
Experiments
-0.19
2.15We
0.0 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
We We

Fig. 8. (a) The variation of exponent a (in b  sa) with We extracted from the temporal variation of spread factor by linearly fitting the spreading phase data for the
corresponding We presented in log–log plot (for example, see insert), and (b) the variation of normalized spreading rate, extracted by linearly fitting the spreading phase data
for each We (for example, see insert), with We. The error bars shown in the plot are standard deviation of fitted parameters.
44 S. Sen et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 54 (2014) 38–46

in literature [49] for drop impact on smooth surfaces). The depen- 5

dence of bmax on We as predicted by Ukiwe–Kwok model can be de- Experiments
duced from Eq. (6) as 0.75We0.28
4

 
We
3ð1  cos hY Þ þ 4 pffiffiffiffiffiffi b3max  ðWe þ 12Þbmax ) bmax 3
Re

τmax
" #0:5
We þ 12
 ð8Þ
ffiffiffiffi
3ð1  cos hY Þ þ 4 pWe Re
2
The above scaling of maximum spread is similar to that given by
Pasandideh-Fard et al. who used the advancing contact angle in-
stead of hY [30]. Applying the limit of hY ? 0 (which corresponds
to low surface tension liquids on hydrophilic metallic surfaces as 10 100 1000
in the present study) and re-writing Re as We0.5/Oh, Eq. (8) yields We
bmax  We0.125. The exponent 0.125 corresponds closely to the Fig. 10. The variation of non-dimensionalized time taken for camelina drop to
exponent 0.14 of the best-fit curve in Fig. 9. We attempt to com- attain maximum spread on smooth stainless steel surface with We. The best fit
pare the dependence of bmax on Uo as observed in our experiments curve of experimental data is also shown.
with that predicted by theoretical models as well as previously re-
ported semi-empirical models obtained from experiments over a
wide range of parameters (see Table 1). The theoretical model of in Fig. 10 indicates that smax varies as We0.28. This corresponds to
Ukiwe and Kwok [17] captures the current experimental exponent an exponent of 0.56 for Uo which is comparable, within the fitting
of 0.28 more accurately. The exponent in semi-empirical model of error, to the value of 0.5 obtained by Antonini et al. [49] for water
Bayer and Megaridis [22], obtained from drop impact experiments drop impact on hydrophilic glass surface.
on different surfaces varying in their surface wettability, shows an   
exact match with the current experimental data. Further, if the va- t max U o Dmax Uo bmax
smax ¼  ¼
lue of Oh in current experiments (0.0063) is included in the semi- Do < dD=dt>spr Do < db=ds>spr
empirical model of Bayer and Megaridis [22], it gives a pre-factor of
We0:14
1.46 which is comparable to 1.73 of our best fit curve. Other mod- / ¼ We0:33 ð9Þ
els show a higher dependence of bmax on Uo compared to that ob- We0:19
served in our experiments. Eq. (9) is comparable, within experimental error and standard
Fig. 10 shows the variation of the time taken for reaching max- deviation of fitting, to the exponent obtained through the best-fit
imum spreading diameter on the target surface, tmax with We. In curve in Fig. 10. This supports the scaling of tmax as Dmax/<dD/dt>spr.
the plot, tmax is normalized with the inertial time scale Do/Uo as In the We range of 100–300, it is seen that smax remains almost
smax = t maxUo/Do. smax increases with increase in We and in the constant with We. Similar observations can also be made from
range of We studied here smax > 1. This indicates that the time ta- the works reported by other research groups [10,12,19,49]. More
ken by the impacting camelina biofuel drop to reach Dmax on the detailed studies involving different liquid drops and solid surfaces,
stainless steel surface is greater than the inertial time scale which are beyond the aim and scope of the current study, are re-
Do/Uo. It should be noted here that, although smax increases with quired to comment on this behavior.
We, the time taken to reach Dmax, tmax decreases with increase in Subsequent to reaching the maximum spreading diameter on
We since Uo increases with increase in We. The best fit curve shown the target surface, it is seen that the drop liquid front (outer edge

Table 1
Comparison of the dependence of bmax on Uo observed in present experiments with that reported in literature.

Range of physical parameters Equation a**

h i
Ukiwe and Kwok [17] Theoretical model 18 < We < 370 ffiffiffiffi b3max  ðWe þ 12Þbmax þ 8 ¼ 0
3ð1  cos hY Þ þ 4 pWe 0.25
Re
1866 < Re < 9735
SCA*: [66.3°, 90.7°]
Clanet et al. [21] Theoretical model 2 < We < 900 P = WeRe4/5 < 1: bmax = We0.25 0.50
10 < Re < 10,000
Surface: superhydrophobic surfaces, plastic
Scheller and Bousfield [50] Empirical model based 19 < Re < 16,400 bmax = 0.61(We/Oh)0.166 0.332
on experiments
0.002 < Oh < 0.58
Surface: polystyrene film, glass (w/ or w/o
hydrophobic surface treatment)
Bayer and Megaridis [22] Empirical model based 0.1 < We < 120 bmax = 0.72(ReWe0.5)0.14 0.28
on experiments
140 < Re < 2100
SCA: [20°,157°]
Present experimental data: Empirical model based 20 < We < 600 bmax = 1.73(We0.14) 0.28
power law best fit on experiments
790 < Re < 3775
SCA: 5.6°
*
Static contact angle.
**
Exponent of Uo in bmax  (Uo)a.
 S. Sen et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 54 (2014) 38–46
5
4
βmax, βf
3
βf
βmax
2
0 100 200 300 400 500
We
Fig. 11. Comparison of the trends of bf and bmax with We for camelina biofuel drop
impact on smooth stainless steel surface.
of spreading drop) remains almost stationary as indicated by the
‘‘plateau-like’’ region in Fig. 7. No measurable receding of camelina
biofuel drop front on the smooth stainless steel surface can be ob-
served in the range of We studied here. This is characteristic of a
completely wetting liquid–solid system (he close to zero) [12] as
in the case of biofuel-stainless steel combination in the present
study. However, the inner edge of outer rim of drop shows a retrac-
tion towards the drop impact point leading to an increase in drop
rim thickness (in the radial direction).
After the retraction of inner edge of drop rim ends, the impact-
ing biofuel drop gradually attains a final equilibrium configuration
on the stainless steel surface (corresponding to tf  300 ms). It
should be mentioned here that, the term ‘‘equilibrium’’ is used
with respect to the completion of processes related to drop impact
dynamics; due to the volatility of biofuel, the drop may still under-
go evaporation under ambient conditions. Fig. 11 shows the varia-
tion of the final spread factor, bf corresponding to the end of
impact-related processes (tf  300 ms), with We. It is observed that
bf increases with We. This may be due to the increase of maximum
spread with We together with the absence of drop front retraction.
This is in contrast to a partially wetting system (such as water drop
impacting on smooth stainless steel surface) where the presence of
a drop retraction process results in an almost negligible variation
of bf with We, especially at low to moderate values of We [51].
Moreover, bf is more than bmax for all We studied here. This implies
that the drop spreads out a little over the maximum spread in a
prolonged period of time indicating a very slow spreading process.
A simple linear fit analysis shows that rate of this spreading pro-
cess  {(bf–bmax)/(sf–smax)}Uo is less than 0.006 Uo for all the We
studied here indicating that it is not an impact-related event. This
slow spreading process, however, could be a combined outcome of
the high wetting nature [12] and evaporation process of biofuel
drop on the stainless steel surface.
4. Conclusions
The impact of camelina-derived biofuel drops, generated using
a syringe–hypodermic needle arrangement, onto a smooth stain-
less steel surface was studied. High speed video camera was used
to capture the impact dynamics of biofuel drops with Weber num-
ber (We) ranging from 20 to 570. The characteristics of biofuel drop
before the start of impact such as formation of biofuel drop in the
hypodermic needle, drop sphericity, drop size and velocity were
analyzed. Various stages of biofuel drop impact dynamics on the
stainless steel surface were analyzed using high speed video
images captured during the experiments. Comparisons between
the experimental measurements of biofuel drop impact and the
45
predictions obtained using existing theoretical and semi-empirical
models were obtained. A summary of the major findings from the
present study is given below.
 Low surface tension of biofuel makes the drop liquid issuing
from the hypodermic needle to spread over the outer surface
of the needle. However, the size of pinched-off biofuel drops
from the needle correlated well with the theory. During static
wetting experiments, the camelina-based biofuel drop fully
wets the surface and forms a thin circular arc-shaped profile
with a low equilibrium contact angle of 5.6°.
 For a given drop impact case, the impacting biofuel drop
600 spreads out radially, reaches a maximum spreading diameter,
and then undergoes a prolonged sluggish drop spreading. The
absence of any significant drop receding during the impact pro-
cess at these impact conditions is attributed to the high wetting
of camelina biofuel on the target surface. For the impact of high
We biofuel drops, the spreading law linking the spreading fac-
tor, b and nondimensionlized time, s tends to b  s0.5.
 The experimentally observed trend of maximum spread factor,
bmax of camelina biofuel drop impact on the target surface with
We is compared well with the theoretically predicted trend
from Ukiwe–Kwok model. The exponential dependence of bmax
on drop impact velocity, Uo as observed from the best curve
fit of current experimental measurements is found to be 0.28
which almost matches with the previous models reported in
the literature. The time taken for achieving the maximum
spreading diameter normalized with the inertial time scale, smax
increases with increasing We. The exponential dependence of
smax on We is found to be 0.28.
 The final spread factor, bf measured long after the start of
impact process (t  300 ms) increases with increasing We. This
is in contrast to water drop impact on stainless steel surface
where bf remains almost constant with We at moderate values
of We. The final spread factor is little more than bmax due to a
very slow spreading process driven by the high wetting nature
of the camelina biofuel-stainless steel system.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Dr. S.K. Puri, Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., and Dr. A.K. Jain, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for
the supply for biofuel blend along with its properties. We also
acknowledge the valuable support provided by Dr. John Hu, Pratt
& Whitney Canada.
References
[1] C.D. Stow, M.G. Hadfield, An experimental investigation of fluid flow resulting
from the impact of water drop with an unyielding dry surface, Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. A 373 (1981) 419–441.
[2] S. Chandra, C.T. Avedisian, On the collision of a droplet with a solid-surface,
Proc. R. Soc. Lon. A 432 (1991) 13–41.
[3] C. Mundo, M. Sommerfeld, C. Tropea, Droplet-wall collisions: experimental
studies of the deformation and breakup process, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 21
(1995) 151–173.
[4] A.L.N. Moreira, A.S. Moita, M.R. Panão, Advances and challenges in explaining
fuel spray impingement: How much a single droplet impact research is
useful?, Prog Energy Comb. Sci. 36 (2010) 554–580.
[5] D.W. Stanton, C.J. Rutland, Multi-dimensional modeling of thin liquid films and
spray–wall interactions resulting from impinging sprays, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 41 (1998) 3037–3054.
[6] S.E. Bechtel, D.B. Bogy, F.E. Talke, Impact of liquid drop against a flat surface,
IBM J. Res. Dev. 25 (1981) 963–971.
[7] F. Gao, A.A. Sonin, Precise deposition of molten micro-drops: the physics of
digital microfabrication, Proc. R. Soc. London A 444 (1994) 533–554.
[8] M. Orme, R.F. Smith, Enhanced aluminum properties by means of precise
droplet deposition, ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 122 (2000) 484–493.
[9] L. Pawlowski, The Science and Engineering of Thermal Spray Coatings, Wiley,
New York, 1995.
46 S. Sen et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 54 (2014) 38–46
[10] J. Fukai, Y. Shiiba, T. Yamamoto, O. Miyataka, D. Poulikakos, C.M. Megaridis, Z.
Zhao, Wetting effects on the spreading of a liquid droplet colliding with a flat
surface: experiment and modeling, Phys. Fluids 7 (1995) 236–247.
[11] R. Rioboo, M. Marengo, C. Tropea, Outcomes from a drop impact on solid
surfaces, Atomization Sprays 11 (2001) 155–166.
[12] R. Rioboo, M. Marengo, C. Tropea, Time evolution of liquid drop impact onto
solid, dry surfaces, Exp. Fluids 33 (2002) 112–124.
[13] S. Sikalo, M. Marengo, C. Tropea, E.N. Ganic, Analysis of impact of droplets on
horizontal surfaces, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 25 (2002) 503–510.
[14] T. Bennett, D. Pouliakakos, Splat-quench solidification: estimating the
maximum spreading of a droplet impacting a solid surface, J. Mater. Sci. 28
(1993) 963–970.
[15] T. Mao, D.C.S. Kuhn, H. Tran, Spread and rebound of liquid droplets upon
impact on flat surfaces, AIChE J. 43 (1997) 2169–2179.
[16] S.D. Aziz, S. Chandra, Impact, recoil and splashing of molten metal droplets, Int.
J. Heat Transf. 43 (2000) 2841–2857.
[17] C. Ukiwe, D.Y. Kwok, On the maximum spreading diameter of impacting
droplets on well-prepared solid surfaces, Langmuir 21 (2005) 666–673.
[18] P. Attané, F. Girard, V. Morin, An energy balance approach of the dynamics of
drop impact on a solid surface, Phys. Fluids 19 (2007) 012101.
[19] D.C. Vadillo, A. Soucemarianadin, C. Delattre, D.C.D. Roux, Dynamic contact
angle effects onto the maximum drop impact spreading on solid surfaces,
Phys. Fluids 21 (2009) 122002.
[20] R. Li, N. Ashgriz, S. Chandra, Maximum spread of droplet on solid surface: low
Reynolds number and Weber numbers, J. Fluids Eng. 132 (2010) 061302.
[21] C. Clanet, C. Béguin, D. Richard, D. Quéré, Maximal deformation of an
impacting drop, J. Fluid Mech. 517 (2004) 199–208.
[22] I.S. Bayer, C.M. Megaridis, Contact angle dynamics of droplets impacting on flat
surfaces with different wetting characteristics, J. Fluid Mech. 558 (2006) 415–
449.
[23] G.E. Cossali, M. Marengo, M. Santini, Secondary atomisation produced by
single drop vertical impacts onto heated surfaces, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 29
(2005) 937–946.
[24] T. Tran, H.J.J. Staat, A. Prosperetti, C. Sun, D. Lohse, Drop impact on superheated
surfaces, Phys Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 036101.
[25] E.R. Negeed, N. Ishihara, K. Tagashira, S. Hidaka, M. Kohno, Y. Takata,
Experimental study on the effect of surface conditions on evaporation of
sprayed liquid droplet, Int. J. Thermal Sci. 49 (2010) 2250–2271.
[26] A.L. Biance, F. Chevy, C. Clanet, G. Lagubeau, D. Quere, On the elasticity of an
inertial liquid shock, J. Fluid Mech. 554 (2006) 47–66.
[27] J.D. Bernardin, C.J. Stebbins, I. Mudawar, Effect of surface roughness of water
droplet impact history and heat transfer regimes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 40
(1997) 73–88.
[28] E.R. Negeed, S. Hidaka, M. Kohno, Y. Takata, Effect of the surface roughness and
oxidation layer on the dynamic behavior of micrometric single water droplets
impacting onto heated surfaces, Int. J. Thermal Sci. 70 (2013) 65–82.
[29] G.P. Celata, M. Cumo, A. Mariani, G. Zummo, Visualization of the impact of
water drops on a hot surface: effect of drop velocity and surface inclination,
Heat Mass Transfer 42 (2006) 885–890.
[30] M. Pasandideh-Fard, Y.M. Qiao, S. Chandra, J. Mostaghimi, Capillary effects
during droplet impact on a solid surface, Phys. Fluids 8 (1996) 650–659.
[31] M. Bussmann, S. Chandra, J. Mostaghimi, Modeling the splash of a droplet
impacting a solid surface, Phys. Fluids 12 (2000) 3121–3132.
[32] H.Y. Kim, J.H. Chun, The recoiling of liquid droplets upon collision with solid
surfaces, Phys. Fluids 13 (2001) 643–659.
[33] I.V. Roisman, R. Rioboo, C. Tropea, Normal impact of a liquid drop on a dry
surface: model for spreading and receding, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 458
(2002) 1411–1430.
[34] Y. Renardy, S. Popinet, L. Duchemin, M. Renardy, S. Zaleski, C. Josserand, M.A.
Drumright-Clarke, D. Richard, C. Clanet, D. Quéré, Pyramidal and toroidal
water drops after impact on a solid surface, J. Fluid Mech. 484 (2003) 69–83.
[35] P.R. Gunjal, V.V. Ranade, R.V. Chaudhari, Dynamics of drop impact on solid
surface: experiments and VOF simulations, AIChE J. 51 (2005) 59–78.
[36] M. Rein, Phenomena of liquid drop impact on solid and liquid surfaces, Fluid
Dyn. Res. 12 (1993) 61–93.
[37] A.L. Yarin, Drop impact dynamics: splashing, spreading, receding, bouncing,
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 38 (2006) 159–192.
[38] M. Marengo, C. Antonini, I. Roisman, C. Tropea, Drop collisions with simple and
complex surfaces, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 16 (2011) 292–302.
[39] D.R. Shonnard, L. Williams, T.N. Kalnes, Camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel:
sustainable advanced biofuels, Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy 29 (2010)
382–392.
[40] E. Corporan, T. Edwards, L. Shafer, M.J. DeWitt, C. Klingshirn, S. Zabarnick, Z.
West, R. Striebich, J. Graham, J. Klein, Chemical, thermal stability, seal swell,
and emissions studies of alternative jet fuels, Energy Fuels 25 (2011) 955–966.
[41] S.L. Outcalt, T.J. Fortin, Density and speed of sound measurements of four
bioderived aviation fuels, J. Chem. Eng. Data 57 (2012) 2869–2877.
[42] X. Hui, K. Kumar, C. Sung, T. Edwards, D. Gardner, Experimental studies on the
combustion characteristics of alternative jet fuels, Fuel 98 (2012) 176–182.
[43] Y.C. Liu, A.J. Savas, C.T. Avedisian, The spherically symmetric droplet burning
characteristics of Jet-A and biofuels derived from camelina and tallow, Fuel
108 (2013) 824–832.
[44] N.K. Mishra, Y. Zhang, A. Ratner, Effect of chamber pressure on spreading and
splashing of liquid drops upon impact on a dry smooth stationary surface, Exp.
Fluids 51 (2011) 483–491.
[45] V. Vaikuntanathan, R. Kannan, D. Sivakumar, Impact of water drops onto the
junction of a hydrophobic texture and a hydrophilic smooth surfaces, Colloids
Surf. A 369 (2010) 65–74.
[46] P.G. de Gennes, F. Brochard Wyart, D. Quere, Capillarity and Wetting
Phenomena: Drops, Bubbles, Pearls, Waves, Springer, 2004.
[47] J. Drelich, J.D. Miller, R.J. Good, The effect of drop (bubble) size on advancing
and receding contact angles for heterogeneous and rough solid surfaces as
observed with sessile-drop and captive-bubble techniques, J. Colloid Interface
Sci. 179 (1996) 37–50.
[48] K. Range, F. Feuillebois, Influence of surface roughness on liquid drop impact, J.
Colloid Interface Sci. 203 (1998) 16–30.
[49] C. Antonini, A. Amirfazli, M. Marengo, Drop impact and wettability: from
hydrophilic to superhydrophobic surfaces, Phys. Fluids 24 (2012) 102104.
[50] B.L. Scheller, D.W. Bousfield, Newtonian drop impact with a solid surface,
AIChE J. 41 (1995) 1357–1367.
[51] R. Kannan, PhD Thesis, Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, 2011.