See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318283797

Water drop impact onto a hot surface: heat

transfer in the nucleate boiling regime

Conference Paper · May 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 37

3 authors:

Jan Breitenbach Ilia V Roisman

Technische Universität Darmstadt Technische Universität Darmstadt
8 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 129 PUBLICATIONS 1,935 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cameron Tropea
Technische Universität Darmstadt
400 PUBLICATIONS 7,774 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Exploring the Physical Mechanisms during the Impact of Supercooled Water Drops View project

HAIC - High Altitude Ice Crystals View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan Breitenbach on 08 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ILASS-Americas 29th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Atlanta, GA, May 2017

Water drop impact onto a hot surface: heat transfer in the nucleate boiling
regime

J. Breitenbach∗, I. V. Roisman, C. Tropea

Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamic
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany
Abstract
Outcomes from an isothermal drop impact without phase change onto a solid surface (rebound, deposition
or splash) are determined by the impact parameters, liquid material properties, substrate morphology and
wettability. However, if a drop impacts onto a hot surface additional effects arise, for example, Marangoni
flow, nucleate or film boiling, evaporation, or temperature dependent fluid properties. By varying the
surface temperature the phenomena of drop impact can be changed significantly. Various thermodynamic
and hydrodynamic regimes can be observed and constitute the basis of the current study.
The main subject of this experimental study is the characterization of the hydrodynamic outcome of a
single drop impact onto a hot surface. Drop impact phenomena have been observed and characterized using
a high-speed video system. The impact parameters and the surface temperature have been varied. The
observations lead to a classification of impact outcomes into several thermodynamic regimes (evaporation,
nucleate boiling, transitional boiling, and film boiling) and hydrodynamic impact regimes (drop deposition,
drop rebound, and drop breakup). The contact time of the impinging drop on the surface has been measured
for the nucleate boiling regime and a model for this time and for the heat flux from the substrate to the
drop has been proposed. Comparison of model predictions to existing literature data is good.

∗ Corresponding Author: jbreitenbach@sla.tu-darmstadt.de

Introduction
The study of drop impact is often motivated by
future technologies such as spray cooling [1], since
very high heat flux densities can be achieved, al-
though correlations of the important quantities are
mainly empirical in nature. The main measure of
the effectiveness of spray cooling is the achieved heat
flux density [2] as a function of the operating ther-
modynamic regimes and the critical heat flux [3].
The phenomena of drop impact onto hot sur-
faces have been comprehensively investigated in the
past, but many questions still remain unclear. For a
pure isothermal drop impact the outcome mainly de-
pends on the parameters impact velocity, substrate
morphology and wettability, and liquid properties
[4]. Comprehensive reviews of these phenomena can
be found in [5] and [6].
Drop impact onto a hot surface can be addi-
tionally accompanied by Marangoni effects, liquid
boiling, phase transition, and changes of tempera-
ture dependent material properties. Therefore the
non-isothermal drop impact is a very complex phe-
nomenon and the outcome of the drop impact can
be significantly influenced by the substrate temper-
ature [7, 8].
At higher surface temperatures, above the Lei-
denfrost temperature [9], a vapor layer between the
drop and the substrate surface develops and the drop
does not wet the surface [10, 11]. The Leidenfrost
temperature is influenced by the surface properties
[12], the liquid properties [13] and also by the im-
pact properties [14]. Besides the film boiling regime
(above the Leidenfrost temperatur), also the nucle-
ate boiling, transition boiling and convection boil-
ing are identified as possible microscopic thermody-
namic regimes [15, 16]. Moreover, the surface tem-
perature also effects the hydrodynamic outcome, e.g
the splashing threshold and the characteristic size of
secondary droplets [17, 18].
The main subject of the present study is the dy-
namics of drop impact onto a hot surface for differ-
ent hydrodynamic and thermodynamic conditions.
Drop impact phenomena have been observed and
characterized using a high-speed video system. The
heat transfer in the solid substrate under the ses-
sile drop is analyzed theoretically. This theoreti-
cal analysis allows prediction of the heat transfer
from the wall to the drop and an estimation of
the typical time of drop evaporation, two quantities
of paramount importance for spray cooling applica-
tions. The model agrees very well with the experi-
mental data.
2
Experimental Method
In this study various experiments have been per-
formed with different impact velocities and initial
surface temperatures. The two setups used in the
experiments are shown in Figure 1 and both setups
compromise a controlled heating system [H and S],
the drop generator unit [DG], the illumination sys-
tem [LED] with a diffuser plate [D], the PC-System
control unit and a CMOS high-speed camera [Cam]
with a maximum resolution of 1280 × 800 pixel at
6200 fps to record side-view and bottom-view im-
ages of the drop impact. The high-speed camera
has been mounted with an AF Micro-Nikkor 60 mm
1:2.8 D micro lens and spacer rings. In order to
perform high-speed shadowgraphy imaging a 120 W
LED spotlight with a 3 mm optical diffuse plate are
used as illumination system to achieve a homoge-
neous background.
The heating system in Setup A (Fig. 1a) con-
sists of an aluminum substrate [S] embedded in a
heated copper cylinder [H]; the impact surface of the
aluminum substrate (EN AW 7075) was processed in
several steps with abrasive paper (Micro Mesh MM
1500 - 12000) and polishing paste to reach a final
average surface roughness of Ra ≈ 0.05 µm. To in-
vestigate the splashing phenomena and the bubble
formation in the nucleate boiling regime, the heating
system in Setup B (Fig. 1b) has been developed. To
achieve a bottom view of the impact process, the im-
pact surface [S] consists of a 3 mm thick transparent
sapphire plate heated by a copper ring [H].
To heat up the copper in setup A a 250 W hot-
set cartridge heater is placed inside the cylinder and
to heat up Setup B, overall 8 × 120 W hotset car-
tridge heaters are placed circumferentially inside the
copper ring. Furthermore, to insulate their lateral
surface, the cylinder and the ring are encapsulated
in a low conductive ceramic. The temperature of
the aluminum impact surface is controlled by a hot-
set PID thermo-controller together with a Type-K
thermocouple placed 0.5 mm below the impact point
of the substrate surface. Since the temperature dif-
ference between the thermocouple and the impact
surface can be neglected, the surface temperature is
approximated as the measured substrate tempera-
ture of the thermocouple. The surface temperature
of the transparent saphire surface is measured con-
tactless by an infrared thermocouple and controlled
with the PID controller. The initial surface tem-
perature in the experiments can be varied between
T0 = 50◦ C to 400◦ C.
In the experiments the drop is generated in the
drop generation unit [DG] with a blunt hypoder-
mic needle and a piezoelectric micro pump which

PC-System
DG
d0
D Various thermodynamic regimes [19] which has
U0
Cam
S
H tion boiling, (b) nucleate boiling, (c) transition boil-
Thermo-Controller
(a) Setup A, for side view.
PC-System
D
LE
DG
D collapse.
d0
D The transition boiling regime is a transient
U0
Cam
S caused by the high wall temperature. Consequently,
H
Cam
Thermo-Controller
(b) Setup B, for bottom view.
Figure 1. Experimental Setup A (a) and Setup
B (b): heating system [H and S] controlled by a
thermo-controller, drop generation unit [DG], an il-
lumination system [LED] with a diffuser plate [D],
a computer control system [PC-System] and CMOS
high-speed cameras [Cam].
supplies the fluid through the needle until a drop
detaches under the action of gravity. The drop gen-
erator and its position is controlled by a computer
control system. Neglecting aerodynamic drag forces,
the impact velocity can be approximated as the the-
oretical free-fall velocity [13].
Double distilled water (density ρw = 998 kg/m3 ,
kinematic viscosity νW = 10−6 m2 /s, surface tension
σW = 72.75 · 10−3 N/m, liquid temperature Td0 =
20◦ C) is used as fluid in the experiments. With the
size of the blunt hypodermic needle (Gauge 21) and
different positions of the needle above the surface,
a drop diameter d0 = 2.2 mm and impact velocities
U0 = 0.3 − 3.0 m/s can be produced. The effective
drop velocity and diameter is calculated by image
post-processing.
Observation of drop impact phenomena
LED been observed in the experiments for different sur-
face temperatures are shown in Figure 2: (a) convec-
ing, and (d) film boiling. For temperatures slightly
above the saturation temperature, little or no bub-
bles can be observed inside the drop; therefore the
drop vaporizes relatively slowly. At higher surface
temperatures, drop evaporation is caused mainly
by nucleate boiling. Small vapor bubbles arise fre-
quently at the drop surface interface, quickly in-
crease and suddenly separate from the surface due
their own lift. The bubbles ascend through the drop
and may coalesce with other bubbles. Various fine
secondary droplets are produced when the bubbles
break through the drop surface and consequently
regime between nucleate boiling and film boiling.
LED
The vapor bubble generation rate rises quickly,
bubbles coalesce and form a vapor layer over some
portions of the area between the drop and the sur-
face. Since water vapor conducts heat energy much
worse than water, the heat flux transferred to the
water drop decreases [9] with increasing surface tem-
peratures. The transition boiling regime is very un-
stable, liquid layers frequently collapse and numer-
ous secondary droplets are generated.
Film boiling occurs once the surface tempera-
ture rises above the Leidenfrost temperature. At
this condition the substrate surface is covered with
a full vapor layer and the drop no longer wets the
surface. As a consequence, the drop lifetime in-
creases significantly. The entire boiling process is
not only controlled by the initial surface temper-
ature T0 ; flow modes can switch during the drop
evaporation, since the surface temperature and the
drop size may change.
The observations of the impact phenomena lead
to a classification into different impact outcomes. In
Figure 3 various hydrodynamic impact regimes are
shown: (a) drop deposition, (b) drop rebound and
(c) drop breakup. In the drop deposition regime
no rebound is observed and the drop wets the sur-
face over the whole impact process. In the rebound
regime the entire drop bounces; this phenomenon is
caused by the vapor layer at the substrate surface.
The vapor layer between the drop and the surface
3
 (a) convection boiling
(b) nucleate boiling
(c) transition boiling
(d) film boiling
Figure 2. Observed microscopic thermodynamic
regimes: (a) convection boiling, (b) nucleate boiling,
(c) transition boiling and (d) film boiling.
reduces energy dissipation during the drop spread-
ing and receding, so that at the end of receding there
is still some kinetic energy left for bouncing [7]. In
the rebound regime, during the drop spreading and
receding, clouds of secondary droplets occur due to a
partial wetting of some portions of the drop with the
hot surface. In the breakup regime the drop breaks
up due to the development of the lamella instabil-
ities, leading to the emergence of expanding holes.
Fast rising and growing bubbles produce holes in
the lamella which expand very fast. The expansion
4
(a) drop depostion
(b) drop rebound
(c) drop breakup
Figure 3. Drop impact of different observed hydro-
dynamic impact regimes: (a) drop deposition, (b)
drop rebound and (c) drop breakup.
of the holes and the breakup of the lamella lead to
the formation of numerous fine secondary droplets.
The drop breakup regime has been observed only for
higher surface temperatures T0 and impact param-
eters Re. Nevertheless the surface temperature is
high and a vapor layer has to be formed, the drop
lamella has to be partially in contact with the sur-
face, since bubbles occur within the thin lamella.
The partial contact of the lamella is likely caused by
the high inertia forces of the drop during impact.
Drop impact in the nucleate boiling regime
Figure 4 shows an exemplary drop impact in the
drop in the nucleate boiling regime for the surface
temperature T0 = 130 ◦ C and the impact parame-
ters d0 = 2.15 mm, U0 = 0.7 m/s, and Reynolds
number Re = 1500. After the drop deposition, it is
characterized by nucleate boiling, leading to a com-
plete drop evaporation on the hot substrate. In the
nucleate boiling regime the drop contact time tc is
 t = −3.6 ms t = 2.0 ms t = 30.4 ms
Figure 4. Exemplary drop impact in the nucleate boiling regime for the surface temperature T0 = 130 ◦ C
and the impact parameters d0 = 2.15 mm, U0 = 0.7 m/s, Reynolds number Re = 1500.
2 in the drop is rather complicated. Fig. 6 shows an
Re = 1500
Re = 2500
Drop contact time tc [s]
Re = 4200
1.5
1 contact lines move on the substrate, since the bub-
0.5
0 the vapor bubbles within the drop. Only the tem-
110 120 130 140 150 160
Surface temperature T0 [◦ C]
Figure 5. Drop contact time in nucleate boiling
regime for various initial wall temperatures T0 and
impact parameters Re (constant d0 = 2.15 mm and
various impact velocities U0 ).
the total time until the drop fully evaporates. It is
an important quantity, which strongly influences the
heat flux from the substrate to the drop. As such,
this quantity is a necessary element of any spray
cooling model. In Fig. 5 the drop contact time tc
is shown as a function of the initial surface temper-
ature T0 . It is quite obvious, that in the nucleate
boiling regime the contact time tc significantly de-
creases with increasing initial surface temperature,
whereas the contact time tc is not influenced by the
impact velocity U0 . The drop contact time tc is ex-
pressed well by the relation
tc ∼ (T0 − Tsat )−1.92 . (1)
obtained by fitting the experimental data.
Evaluation of heat transfer during nucleate boiling
Immediately after the drop impact, heat trans-
fer is initiated in the hot substrate and in the im-
pacting drop. Inside the solid substrate the heat is
transferred by conduction, while the heat transfer
5
t = 160 ms t = 290 ms
example of the bubble pattern and the flow within
the drop in the nucleate boiling regime. After 8 ms
the wetted area of the drop is already covered by
vapor bubbles, which is a much shorter time com-
pared to overall drop contact time tc . The bubble
ble diameter changes in time: periodically increasing
due to evaporation until the drop detaches [20]. The
temperature condition between the substrate surface
and the drop is not uniform and very complex. It is
governed by the appearance, growth and motion of
perature at the moving contact lines of the bubbles,
where liquid vaporizes, is known. It has to be equal
to the the saturation temperature Tsat . For this very
reason the temperature distribution in the present
analyst is approximated by the uniform saturation
temperature Tsat at the drop/surface interface, since
the continuous moving contact lines form a network
of lines of constant saturation temperatures. Such
analysis is not an exact solution and is only valid in
case of the nucleate boiling regime. Nevertheless, it
allows us to roughly estimate the heat transfer and
gives us an important scale.
As already shown in [19] the overall energy bal-
ance of heat transfer from the evaporating sessile
drop and the heat flux from the substrate can be
written as
Z tc
πd3
Ac (t)q̇(t) dt ≈ ρl L∗ 0 , (2)
0 6
where q̇ is the heat flux density at the solid/liquid
interface, Ac is the contact area, ρl is the density of
the liquid, d0 is the initial drop diameter, and L∗ =
L+∆H0 is the sum of the latent heat of evaporation
L and the enthalpy difference ∆H0 between initial
drop and saturated liquid, respectively. Equation
(2) is based on the assumption that the energy only
goes into evaporating the drop. This assumption is
only valid in the nucleate boiling regime.
Immediately after√ the drop impact, a thermal
boundary layer δT ∼ αw t develops in the hot solid
 t = 0.6 ms t = 1.6 ms t = 3.2 ms t = 5.9 ms t = 8.5 ms

Figure 6. Exemplary bottom view through a transparent substrate on a water drop during nucleate boiling.

where λw is the thermal p conductivity and ew is the

thermal effusivity ew = λw ρw cp of the solid sub-
strate.
The contact area Ac (t) of the drop with the solid
substrate changes during drop spreading and reced-
ing. Nevertheless, it can be approximated as

Ac ≈ kw πd20 , (7)

since the drop contact time tc in the nucleate boiling

regime is much longer than the observed impact time
timpact ∼ d0 /U0 . The coefficient kw is determined
primarily by the surface structure and wettability.
Figure 7. Sketch of the assumed temperature dis-
It also accounts for the mass loss due to secondary
tribution within the solid substrate due to the con-
droplets and the deviation of the interface temper-
tact of the liquid with the solid substrate. The
ature from the assumed uniform saturation temper-
solid/liquid interface is located at z = 0.
ature. The coefficient kw is of order unity and can
be determined from the experiments in Fig. 5. Sub-
substrate. The heat conduction in the substrate can stituting expressions (5), (6), and (7) in the energy
be approximated by a one-dimensional model, since balance equation (2) leads to
the thickness of the boundary layer is much smaller 2
ρl L∗ d0

than the drop diameter. At t = 0 the liquid is placed
tc = π . (8)
in contact with a semi-infinite solid wall z > 0 at the 12ew kw (T0 − Tsat )
initial temperature T0 . As shown schematically in
Fig. 7, the interface temperature between the drop It is important to note that the obtained dependence
−2
and the hot substrate is approximated as the satu- tc ∼ (T0 − Tsat ) is in a good agreement with the
ration temperature Tsat . The heat conduction equa- empirical correlation in Eq. (1). Introducing the
tion in the solid substrate scaled wall temperature and dimensionless time in
∂Tw ∂ 2 Tw the form
−α = 0, (3)
∂t ∂z 2 T0 − Tsat t 12 ew (Tsat − Td0 )
 2
has to be solved considering the boundary conditions Θ= , τ= ,
Tsat − Td0 π ρl L∗ d0
Tw = Tsat at z = 0; Tw → T0 at z → ∞, (4) (9)
allows the contact time to be given in dimensionless
where Tw (z, t) is the temperature distribution in the form
solid substrate. The similarity solution of Eqs. (3)- 1
τc = 2 2 . (10)
(4) is well known [21] kw Θ
 
z In Figure 8 and 9 the dimensionless contact
Tw (z, t) = Tsat + (T0 − Tsat )erf √ . (5)
2 αw t times from this study as well as several from ex-
isting literature data (Abu-Zaid [22], Buchmüller
The heat flux density at the solid/liquid interface
[25], Michiyoshi and Makino [23], Tartarini et al.
can be expressed with the help of Eq. (5) as
 [24]) are shown compared with the theoretical pre-
∂Tw  ew (T0 − Tsat ) diction, Eq. (10). The agreement is good for all the
q̇(t) ≡ λw = √ √ , (6)
cases. For the data shown in Fig. 8, the coefficient
∂z z=0 π t

6
 kw = 1.6 is determined from a fitting to the exper-
imental data. This parameter is the same for all
20
Eq. (10) the substrates used in the experiments, since their
Dimensionless contact time τc [-]

Present work wettability properties are similar [26].

Abu-Zaid At the elevated pressure conditions shown in
15 Buchmüller Fig. 9 the best fit to the experimental data from
Michiyoshi
Tartarini [25] results in kw = 1.0. The decrease of the coeffi-
cient kw can be explained by the conditions at the
10 target surface (some sediments have been observed
in the experiments [25]) and by the increase of the
contact angle with the ambient pressure [27], leading
5 to the decrease of the contact area of the drop.
With equations (6) and (8) the time averaged
heat flux of the drop evaporation can be expressed
as:
0 2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 24e2w kw (T0 − Tsat )
Scaled wall temperature Θ [-] hq̇ic = . (11)
ρl πL∗ d0

Figure 8. Dimensionless contact time from this In many cases these values (∼ 106 W/m2 ) are
study as well as from literature data [22, 23, 24, much larger than heat flux densities achieved by
25] as a function of the scaled wall temperature steady sprays [28, 29], because dense sprays create
Θ, in comparison with the theoretical prediction a continuous water film, which reduces the heat flux
(Eq. (10)). The initial drop diameter in the ex- density significantly.
periments ranges from 2.1 to 4.6 mm and the solid
Nomenclature
substrate are polished aluminum, carbon steel, and
α thermal diffusivity
stainless steel.
cp specific heat capacity
d0 drop diameter
δT thermal boundary layer
∆H0 enthalpy difference
e thermal effusivity
70
Eq. (10) kw dimensionless coefficient
Dimensionless contact time τc [-]

60 p0 = 5 bar L latent heat

p0 = 9 bar λ thermal conductivity
p0 = 13 bar
50 p0 = 17 bar
ρ density
p0 = 21 bar tc contact time
40 p0 = 25 bar τc dimensionless contact time
T0 initial surface temperature
30 Td0 initial drop temperature
Tw temperature distribution
20
U0 impact velocity
10 q̇c heat flux
z coordinate
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Subscripts
Scaled wall temperature Θ [-] w solid substrate
l liquid
Figure 9. Dimensionless contact time at various sat saturation conditions
ambient pressures [25] as a function of the scaled wall
temperature Θ, in comparison with the theoretical References
predictions (Eq. (10)). The ambient pressure ranges [1] Jungho Kim. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow,
from 5 to 25 bar, the initial drop diameter is d0 = 2.4 28(4):753–767, 2007.
mm and the solid substrate is polished aluminum.
[2] J. Yang, L. C. Chow, and M. R. Pais. ASME.
J. Heat Transfer., 118(3):668–671, 1996.

7
 [3] Kurt A. Estes and Issam Mudawar. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf., 38(16):2985–2996, 1995.
[4] Romain Rioboo, Cameron Tropea, and Marco
Marengo. Atom. Sprays, 11(2):155–166, 2001.
[5] A. L. Yarin. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 38:159–
192, 2006.
[6] Marco Marengo, Carlo Antonini, Ilia V. Rois-
man, and Cameron Tropea. Curr. Opin. Colloid
Interface Sci., 16(4):292–302, 2011.
[20] Van P. Carey. Liquid-Vapor Phase-Change Phe-
nomena: An Introduction to the Thermophysics
of Vaporization and Condensation Processes in
Heat Transfer Equipment. Series in Chemical
and Mechanical Engineering. Taylor & Francis,
Bristol, 1992.
[21] Ilia V. Roisman. J. Fluid Mech., 656:189–204,
2010.
[22] M. Abu-Zaid. Heat Mass Transf., 40(9):737–
741, 2004.

[7] V. Bertola. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 85:430–
437, 2015.
[8] Tuan Tran, Hendrik J. J. Staat, Andrea Pros-
peretti, Chao Sun, and Detlef Lohse. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 108(3):036101, 2012.
[9] Johann Gottlob Leidenfrost. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf., 9(11):1153–1166, 1966.
[10] David Quéré. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 45:197–
215, 2013.
[11] Navid Z. Mehdizadeh and Sanjeev Chandra.
Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A-Math. Phys. Eng.
Sci., 462(2074):3115–3131, 2006.
[12] John Bernardin, Clinton J. Stebbins, and Issam
Mudawar. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 40(1):73–
88, 1996.
[13] V. Bertola. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.,
52(7):1786–1793, 2009.
[23] Michiyoshi Itaru and Makino Kunihide. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf., 21(5):605–613, 1978.
[24] P. Tartarini, G. Lorenzini, and M. R. Randi.
Heat Mass Transf., 34(6):437–447, 1999.
[25] Ilja Buchmüller. PhD thesis, TU Darmstadt,
Darmstadt, Mai 2014.
[26] Amir Faghri and Yuwen Zhang. Transport
phenomena in multiphase systems. Academic
Press, 2006.
[27] Nikolai Siemons, Hans Bruining, Hein
Castelijns, and Karl-Heinz Wolf. J. Col-
loid Interface Sci., 297(2):755–761, 2006.
[28] Lanchao Lin and Rengasamy Ponnappan. Int.
J. Heat Mass Transf., 46(20):3737–3746, 2003.
[29] Shou-Shing Hsieh, Tsung-Cheng Fan, and
Huang-Hsui Tsai. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.,
47(26):5703–5712, 2004.

[14] Minori Shirota, Michiel A. J. van Limbeek,

Chao Sun, Andrea Prosperetti, and Detlef
Lohse. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:064501, Feb 2016.

[15] John D. Bernardin, Clinton J. Stebbins, and

Issam Mudawar. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.,
40(2):247–267, 1997.

[16] G. Castanet, T. Lienart, and F. Lemoine. Int.

J. Heat Mass Transf., 52(3):670–679, 2009.

[17] A. L. N. Moreira, A. S. Moita, E. Cossali,

M. Marengo, and M. Santini. Exp. Fluids, 43(2-
3):297–313, 2007.

[18] G. E. Cossali, M. Marengo, and M. Santini. Int.

J. Heat Fluid Flow, 29(1):167–177, 2008.

[19] Jan Breitenbach, Ilia V. Roisman, and Cameron

Tropea. Phys. Rev. Fluids, 2:074301, Jul 2017.

View publication stats