Cargando…
Is contact-line mobility a material parameter?
Dynamic wetting phenomena are typically described by a constitutive law relating the dynamic contact angle θ to contact-line velocity U(CL). The so-called Davis–Hocking model is noteworthy for its simplicity and relates θ to U(CL) through a contact-line mobility parameter M, which has historically b...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8861058/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35190559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41526-022-00190-y |
_version_ | 1784654803638419456 |
---|---|
author | Ludwicki, Jonathan M. Kern, Vanessa R. McCraney, Joshua Bostwick, Joshua B. Daniel, Susan Steen, Paul H. |
author_facet | Ludwicki, Jonathan M. Kern, Vanessa R. McCraney, Joshua Bostwick, Joshua B. Daniel, Susan Steen, Paul H. |
author_sort | Ludwicki, Jonathan M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Dynamic wetting phenomena are typically described by a constitutive law relating the dynamic contact angle θ to contact-line velocity U(CL). The so-called Davis–Hocking model is noteworthy for its simplicity and relates θ to U(CL) through a contact-line mobility parameter M, which has historically been used as a fitting parameter for the particular solid–liquid–gas system. The recent experimental discovery of Xia & Steen (2018) has led to the first direct measurement of M for inertial-capillary motions. This opens up exciting possibilities for anticipating rapid wetting and dewetting behaviors, as M is believed to be a material parameter that can be measured in one context and successfully applied in another. Here, we investigate the extent to which M is a material parameter through a combined experimental and numerical study of binary sessile drop coalescence. Experiments are performed using water droplets on multiple surfaces with varying wetting properties (static contact angle and hysteresis) and compared with numerical simulations that employ the Davis–Hocking condition with the mobility M a fixed parameter, as measured by the cyclically dynamic contact angle goniometer, i.e. no fitting parameter. Side-view coalescence dynamics and time traces of the projected swept areas are used as metrics to compare experiments with numerical simulation. Our results show that the Davis–Hocking model with measured mobility parameter captures the essential coalescence dynamics and outperforms the widely used Kistler dynamic contact angle model in many cases. These observations provide insights in that the mobility is indeed a material parameter. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8861058 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88610582022-03-15 Is contact-line mobility a material parameter? Ludwicki, Jonathan M. Kern, Vanessa R. McCraney, Joshua Bostwick, Joshua B. Daniel, Susan Steen, Paul H. NPJ Microgravity Article Dynamic wetting phenomena are typically described by a constitutive law relating the dynamic contact angle θ to contact-line velocity U(CL). The so-called Davis–Hocking model is noteworthy for its simplicity and relates θ to U(CL) through a contact-line mobility parameter M, which has historically been used as a fitting parameter for the particular solid–liquid–gas system. The recent experimental discovery of Xia & Steen (2018) has led to the first direct measurement of M for inertial-capillary motions. This opens up exciting possibilities for anticipating rapid wetting and dewetting behaviors, as M is believed to be a material parameter that can be measured in one context and successfully applied in another. Here, we investigate the extent to which M is a material parameter through a combined experimental and numerical study of binary sessile drop coalescence. Experiments are performed using water droplets on multiple surfaces with varying wetting properties (static contact angle and hysteresis) and compared with numerical simulations that employ the Davis–Hocking condition with the mobility M a fixed parameter, as measured by the cyclically dynamic contact angle goniometer, i.e. no fitting parameter. Side-view coalescence dynamics and time traces of the projected swept areas are used as metrics to compare experiments with numerical simulation. Our results show that the Davis–Hocking model with measured mobility parameter captures the essential coalescence dynamics and outperforms the widely used Kistler dynamic contact angle model in many cases. These observations provide insights in that the mobility is indeed a material parameter. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8861058/ /pubmed/35190559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41526-022-00190-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Ludwicki, Jonathan M. Kern, Vanessa R. McCraney, Joshua Bostwick, Joshua B. Daniel, Susan Steen, Paul H. Is contact-line mobility a material parameter? |
title | Is contact-line mobility a material parameter? |
title_full | Is contact-line mobility a material parameter? |
title_fullStr | Is contact-line mobility a material parameter? |
title_full_unstemmed | Is contact-line mobility a material parameter? |
title_short | Is contact-line mobility a material parameter? |
title_sort | is contact-line mobility a material parameter? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8861058/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35190559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41526-022-00190-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ludwickijonathanm iscontactlinemobilityamaterialparameter AT kernvanessar iscontactlinemobilityamaterialparameter AT mccraneyjoshua iscontactlinemobilityamaterialparameter AT bostwickjoshuab iscontactlinemobilityamaterialparameter AT danielsusan iscontactlinemobilityamaterialparameter AT steenpaulh iscontactlinemobilityamaterialparameter |