of air entrained by the sphere [13]. Hurd et al. studied the water entry characteristics of deformable
elastomeric spheres, finding that the oscillations of these spheres during impact results in new types of
nested cavities [14]. Watson et al. examined spheres with heterogeneous wetting properties, finding that
spheres which are partly hydrophilic and partly hydrophobic always have asymmetric cavities and drift
away from straight-line trajectories [15]. Marston et al. observed cavity formation for heated sphere
impacts, finding that there is an inverted Leidenfrost effect when the sphere temperature is much larger
than the boiling point of the liquid, which either produces a cavity with smooth walls or a double cavity
structure [16]. Mansoor et al. also studied superhydrophobic spheres in detail and used a splash-guard
mechanism to eliminate the phenomenon known as surface seal [17]. Related studies have considered
projectiles with varying aspect ratios and impacts on a two-phase fluid [18, 19, 20].
The process of splash curtain formation in the sphere impact problem shares some similarities with
splashing of a liquid droplet, but is believed to be driven by different physical mechanisms [21, 22].
Nevertheless, the similarities which exist might lead one to wonder whether the dynamics of the splash
curtain can be influenced by the properties of the surrounding gas, given that it is now well-established
that the properties of the surrounding gas play a significant role in influencing droplet splashing. This
line of investigation was initiated by Xu et al. who observed that splashing of a droplet when it impacts
against a flat smooth surface can be completely suppressed by reducing the pressure of the surrounding
gas [23]. Xu studied the dependence of droplet splashing on the roughness and texture of the surface,
confirming that there is a different type of splashing caused by surface roughness (called prompt splash-
ing) which must be distinguished from corona splashing on a smooth surface due to the presence of the
surrounding air [24]. Benkreira and Khan demonstrated that air entrainment in the related problem of
a dip coating flow can also be suppressed under reduced pressures and attributed this effect to the mean
free path of the gas [25].
The regimes considered by these authors are typically for low impact speeds, where gas kinetic effects
are important and the mean free path plays a significant role. This occurs because the maximum speed at
which the liquid can wet the solid surface is controlled by the speed at which the wetting gas lubrication
film in front of the moving contact line is displaced. The height of these films is typically extremely thin
(of the same order as the mean free path of the gas) and as a consequence both droplet splashes and dip
coating flows can be successfully described by models which incorporate kinetic effects [26, 27, 28]. As
an example, the model of [26] uses kinetic theory in the gas film as described by the Boltzmann equation
and combines this with regular hydrodynamics in the liquid phase as described by the Navier-Stokes
equations.
On the other hand, in the Gordillo-Riboux model for droplet splashing, the threshold speed for
splashing is determined using the fact that splashing occurs due to a vertical lift force on the edge of
the liquid sheet from the surrounding gas. This lift force has two contributions: the lubrication force
∼KlµgVtand the suction force ∼KuρgV2
tHt, where µgis the viscosity of the gas, ρgis the density
of the gas, Vtis the initial velocity of the ejected lamella and Htis the initial height of the lamella.
Kland Kuare coefficients which are derived from detailed calculations of the lift force in the region
located between the lamella and the substrate (these calculations show that Klis approximately equal
to a sum of two terms which both depend on the mean free path of the gas) [27]. The lubrication force
captures the viscous contributions to the lift force on the lamella edge and the suction force captures the
inertial forces. Note that viscosity is actually a mean free path effect, since changes in gas pressure do
not change the viscosity of the gas. During the characteristic impact time, viscous effects are confined
to thin boundary layers with a typical width much lower than the radius of the droplet R. Since the
gas Reynolds number Regbased on Htand Vtas the characteristic scales is ∼ O(10), both the viscous
and inertial contributions to the lift force must be considered. The model suggests as expected that at
higher Weber and Reynolds numbers the dominant forces in the droplet splashing problem for a smooth
dry surface are inertial in nature [27].
Experimental evidence for this was found by Burzynski et al., who found that gas entrapmment is
not the mechanism which is responsible for splashing at high Weber and Reynolds numbers and that
splashing is influenced primarily by the density, not the mean free path, of the surrounding gas [29].
This was done by considering a flywheel experiment and different gases at atmospheric pressure, with
splashing outcomes analysed by measuring the size, velocity and angle of ejected secondary droplets. The
splashing outcome was also determined from the total volume ejected, where the theoretical expression
for the volume is calculated using the Gordillo-Riboux theory [27]. Guo et al. conducted numerical
simulations of droplet impingement and splashing on dry and wet surfaces at very high impact speeds,
finding that splashing on a dry surface can be suppressed by lowering the ambient gas density and that
the properties of the ambient gas do not significantly influence splashing on a wet surface [30]. The
2