3.1. Impact outcomes on shallow pools

Our experiments fall on a single ${We}$–${Re}$ curve in figure 1(a) (as ${Oh}$ is almost constant), which approximately coincides with the 1 cSt silicone oil deep pool data set of Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Toole, Fezzaa and Deegan2012). According to their boundary (indigo line in figure 1a), an ejecta sheet forms in our experiments for ${We} \gtrsim 200$. Moreover, as all our experiments reside to the right of the lamella–separate ejecta sheet (olive) boundary in figure 1(a), on a deep pool the ejecta sheet would always remain separate and be subsequently accompanied by a roll jet. We observe the expected dynamics when the pool is sufficiently deep, as shown in figure 3(c) for ${We}=345\pm 7$ and $h^\ast =0.32$. The ejecta sheet remains separate and folds inward towards the initial axis of symmetry before breaking up, with the resulting satellites being ejected from within the collapsing roll jet later on. However, when the pool depth is reduced to $h^\ast =0.10$ with all other parameters maintained (figure 3a), the ejecta sheet no longer remains separate but instead develops into a lamella. These dynamics are similar to low-${Re}$ behaviour on deep pools, which occupy the region to the left of the lamella–separate ejecta sheet (olive) boundary in figure 1(a). Figure 3 therefore confirms that there is a lamella–separate ejecta sheet transition due to pool depth.

Figure 3. ${We}=345\pm 7$ impact of an ethanol droplet onto a shallow pool of the same fluid, with free surface contours (orange) from our axisymmetric numerical simulations overlaid in panels (a,c). Panel (a) shows $h^\ast =0.10$, lamella. Panel (b) shows $h^\ast =0.24$, typical asymmetric dynamics close to the depth transition. Panel (c) shows $h^\ast =0.32$, separate ejecta sheet. The horizontal blue lines in the first column indicate the pool base. Additional depths $h^\ast \in [0.08,0.28]$ are provided as supplementary material (figure S3). All scale bars are 2 mm (videos online).

For ${We}=345$, this depth transition occurs at $h^\ast \approx 0.22$, close to which we see remarkable structural asymmetry as in figure 3(b). In such cases, the ejecta sheet only remains separate in some axial directions, with a lamella formed in others (i.e. different regimes within sections around the circumference of the droplet). This asymmetry is caused by small irregularities in the free surface of the impacting droplet affecting the local $r_c$, which critically influences the ejecta sheet dynamics only very close to the depth transition. Importantly, figure 3(b) provides clear visual evidence that the ejecta sheet merges with the pool to form a single jet on shallow pools, which qualitatively matches the known behaviour for low-${Re}$ impact (i.e. left of the olive line in figure 1a) on deep pools.

Every experiment in our ${We}$–$h^\ast$ parameter space is classified according to whether a lamella (cf. figure 3a) or a separate ejecta sheet (cf. figure 3c) is formed in figure 4. Below ${We} \approx 280$, a lamella is formed for all depths, though it is generally much thicker than at higher ${We}$ for very shallow pools – compare figure 4(b) and figure 4(f). For ${We}>280$, the ejecta sheet remains separate only on deeper pools. All structurally asymmetric outcomes (cf. figure 3b) are identified by yellow markers in figure 4, which only appear very close to the depth (vertical) and We (horizontal) transitions that together divide the two primary outcomes. This observation supports our hypothesis that structural asymmetry is caused by small irregularities in the free surface (only critical very close to transitions) and highlights the abruptness of the depth transition identified. Note that whilst the depth transition appears almost vertical ($h^\ast = 0.22\pm 0.03$), there is a modest migration towards deeper pools for higher ${We}$. We believe this migration is caused by increased impact-induced pressure behind the ejecta sheet affecting its dynamics shortly after formation, as elucidated in § 3.3.

Figure 4. Impact outcomes for all experiments reported. Inset frames are all at $t_u^\ast =0.42$, sharing a 2 mm scale bar. Yellow markers represent structurally asymmetric experiments (cf. figure 3b). Circle markers indicate experiments that shed small satellites; those with triangle markers do not. The purple band delineates the equivalent dry surface ($h^\ast =0$) splashing threshold (Sykes et al. Reference Sykes, Fudge, Quetzeri-Santiago, Castrejón-Pita and Castrejón-Pita2022), which spans a small vertical interval encompassing the range of ${Oh}$ found in our experiments.

The depth transition occurs when $h^\ast$ is one order of magnitude smaller than generally considered for pool depth to have no effect on impact dynamics ($h^\ast \approx 4$, Tropea & Marengo Reference Tropea and Marengo1999; Liang & Mudawar Reference Liang and Mudawar2016). Within each regime, there are differences in the prevalence of instabilities and break up, plus later time dynamics not presented here (e.g. Worthington jet). The markers’ shape in figure 4 establishes whether satellite droplets akin to splashing on dry surfaces are formed (circles for satellites; triangles for no satellites). Here, satellites are defined as fast-moving droplets at least one order of magnitude smaller than $D$ – specifically excluding the larger slower droplets that are sometimes pinched-off from the top of lamellae (Edgerton crowns). Circle markers are most prevalent in the upper reaches of figure 4, indicating that satellites are more prone to form at higher ${We}$ as expected, but also with a separate ejecta sheet. For example, at $t_u^\ast =0.42$, the ejecta sheet is already unstable and sheds satellite droplets for ${We}=515$ and $h^\ast =1.0$ (figure 4c), whilst no such breakup is seen at ${We}=350$ (and comparable $h^\ast$, figure 4e). Inter-regime dependence on $h^\ast$ is comparably weak. Interestingly, Deegan et al. (Reference Deegan, Brunet and Eggers2007) studied a fixed depth of $h^\ast = 0.2$ (with a superset of our ${We}$–${Re}$ parameter space), which happens to be very close to the depth transition we have identified: this observation may help to explain some of the ‘complexities of splashing’ identified there. Within the lamella regime, few experiments produce satellites for ${We}<500$ (see figure 4, where the vast majority of red markers are triangles), whereas ${We}\approx 300$ (purple band in figure 4) is the dry flat surface splashing threshold (Sykes et al. Reference Sykes, Fudge, Quetzeri-Santiago, Castrejón-Pita and Castrejón-Pita2022). This observation offers a potential route to reducing contamination from satellite droplets due to droplet impact, by applying a sufficiently thin layer of the same fluid to the surface. For higher ${We}$ than presented in figure 4, the dynamics become more intricate as the ejecta sheet can touch the droplet or pool within 1 ms of impact.

3.2. Comparing experimental and DNS results

Free surface contours extracted from our axisymmetric DNS simulations are overlaid onto the raw experimental images in figure 3(a,c) without structural asymmetry. From these overlays, we conclude that our DNS set-up accurately captures the key features of both lamella and separate ejecta sheet outcomes. For a quantitative comparison between our experiments and simulations, figure 5 shows the ejecta sheet tip (point B) distance from the initial impact point $O$, $\vert \overrightarrow {OB}\vert$. Four depths $h^\ast \in [0.08,0.32]$ (two either side of the depth transition) are shown, with ${We}=345$ fixed. The experimental errors were determined using a propagation of error analysis (parameters in the caption of figure 5). The number of points is limited both by temporal resolution and the difficulty in accurately discerning the ejecta tip when $t_u^\ast \lessapprox 0.05$ (corresponding to $t\lessapprox 45\,\mathrm {\mu }$s) given its small size, as well as it residing in a region of high curvature between the pool and droplet. Systematic differences between the experiments and simulations (e.g. the real droplet is slightly oblate, but perfectly spherical in silico) were not taken into account. Nevertheless, figure 5 demonstrates very good agreement, despite the multi-scale nature of the flow and the delicate details therein which make this one-to-one comparison a considerable challenge. Both experiments and simulations indicate that the ejecta sheet tip is pushed out further (at a given time) on shallower pools, especially between the depths bisected by the transition identified in figure 4. The dynamics of interest herein take place at very early times (the dashed vertical line in figure 5 delineates the maximum extent of all depth-variation graphs below: $t_u^\ast =0.064$). We are therefore confident in relying on our simulations to explore the physics underpinning the depth transition.

Figure 5. Evolution of the ejecta tip (point B, figure 2c) distance, $\vert \overrightarrow {OB}\vert$, where $O$ is the initial impact point (indicated within, on the initial free surface profile of the simulations, $t_u^\ast =-0.10$). ${We} = 345$ impact; $h^\ast \in [0.08,0.32]$. The dashed vertical line in the graph delineates the maximum extent of all other depth-variation data shown ($t_u^\ast =0.064$, figure 8a). Raw experimental images can be found in figure 3 and the supplementary material (figure S3). Experiment error bars are based on propagation of error analysis assuming the following absolute errors: ${\pm }25\,\%$ of the frame period (which is $27\,\mathrm {\mu }$s at 37 000 fps) for $t$; ${\pm }0.2$ pixels mm$^{-1}$ for the scale; ${\pm }0.02$ mm for $r_c$; ${\pm }0.01$ m s$^{-1}$ for $u$. Systematic differences, including non-sphericity of the droplets only in the experiments, are not included.

3.3. Physical mechanism underpinning the pool depth transition

Dimensionless gauge pressure $p$ and vorticity $\omega$ fields for the axisymmetric cases from figure 3 are shown as two-dimensional slices in figure 6. A ring vortex forms within the fluid close to the ejecta sheet base in both cases, which can be best seen from the inset $\omega$ frames at $t_u^\ast =0.033$. At later times ($t_u^\ast =0.443$ in figure 6), we only see a patch of detached vorticity within the bulk for $h^\ast =0.32$ (figure 6d–f; see also Thoraval et al. Reference Thoraval, Takehara, Etoh, Popinet, Ray, Josserand, Zaleski and Thoroddsen2012), whilst the equivalent vorticity remains connected to the free surface and diffuses away for $h^\ast =0.10$. Indeed, there is only a very weak layer of elevated vorticity, which is attached to the free surface, at $t_u^\ast =0.443$ for the shallower pool (see figure 6c). Therefore, whilst the ring vortex forms for both depths, it only sheds from the free surface on the deeper pool that has the separate ejecta sheet outcome. Agbaglah et al. (Reference Agbaglah, Thoraval, Thoroddsen, Zhang, Fezzaa and Deegan2015) made similar observations for the ${Re}$ transition on deep pools, finding that vortex shedding occurs on the visco-capillary time scale; hence an association of the ${Re}$ transition with a fixed capillary number, ${Re}=5{We}$ (purple line in figure 1a). All our experiments lie in their vortex shedding regime (and ${Re}$ does not depend on $h^\ast$), from which we can infer that the pool base must modify the dynamics such that a lamella forms only when the pool is sufficiently shallow. Hence the origins of the ${Re}$ and depth transitions are different.

Figure 6. Dimensionless pressure $p$ (left) and vorticity $\omega$ (right, positive counterclockwise) field magnitudes for cases with (a–c) $h^* = 0.10$ and (d–f) $h^* = 0.32$, from figure 3 (${We} = 345$; ${Re} = 3184$). The vorticity data are confined to the liquid regions for clarity. The colour bar is shared between panels, with the scale for $\omega$ remaining constant, while $p$ varies from $-1$ to $p_{max} = 4$ (panels a,d), $2$ (panels b,e) and $1$ (panels c,f) (videos online). The whole pool depth is included for all panels, with the pool base indicated by a black line. Velocity slices are provided as supplementary material (figure S5).

For ${We}=345$ and $h^\ast \in [0.05,1.00]$ (spanning the depth transition), figure 7(a) shows that there are clear differences in the temporal development of ejecta sheet length $\vert \overrightarrow {IB}\vert$ between the impact outcomes. Note that this data could not be extracted from our experiments, mainly because our view of the ejecta sheet base (close to point I) is blocked by the revolved ejecta sheet in front. A high growth rate is evident only once the pool is shallow enough, most notably for $h^\ast \leq 0.10$ (i.e. only lamella outcome depths). The convergence of temporal evolution as $h^\ast \geq 0.22$ increases coincides with the decreasing influence of the pool base, whose effect is to alter the pressure distribution within the pool, as also seen in figure 6. In terms of values, the peak impact-induced pressure is 5 % higher at $t_u^\ast =0.003$ (42.4 versus 44.7 kPa) for $h^\ast =0.10$ compared with $h^\ast =0.32$. On shallow pools, the pool base therefore has a confinement effect, maintaining the high-pressure region generated by the impact that would otherwise decay into the pool. Hence, the peak pressure difference between the $h^\ast =0.10$ and $h^\ast =0.32$ cases grows whilst $t_u^\ast \sim O( 10^{-2} )$, to 17 % at $t_u^\ast =0.033$ (15.4 versus 13.1 kPa). As such, the ejecta sheet is pushed out further and for longer on shallower pools. A similar mechanism is known to occur at higher ${We}$ and ${Re}$ where the von Kármán vortex street that arises behind the ejecta sheet can be constrained by a pool base, resulting in both an increase in the maximum liquid (droplet and pool) velocity and altered ejecta sheet dynamics on shallow pools (Thoraval et al. Reference Thoraval, Takehara, Etoh and Thoroddsen2013).

Figure 7. Ejecta sheet length $\vert \overrightarrow {IB}\vert$ and tip velocity (computed as the central temporal derivative of $\vert \overrightarrow {IB}\vert$) in a frame of reference co-moving with I, for ${We} = 345$ impact; $h^\ast \in [0.05,1.00]$.

Figure 7(b) shows the velocity evolution of the ejecta sheet tip (point B) in a frame of reference co-moving with point I, computed as the central temporal derivative of $\vert \overrightarrow {IB}\vert$. The velocities are similar for all depths initially (up to $t_u^\ast \approx 0.01$), but grow substantially only for $h^\ast \leq 0.10$ by $t_u^\ast \approx 0.02$ due to the confinement effect. Given the frame of reference, high velocities can be interpreted as rapid lengthening of the ejecta sheet, which is most pronounced for the lamella outcome. Note that the velocities are almost coincident for all $h^\ast \geq 0.22$ due to the weak influence of the pool base: at $t_u^\ast = 0.033$, the pressure at the wall is almost ambient on the axis of symmetry for $h^\ast =0.32$ (figure 6b).

Figure 8(a) shows that until $t_u^\ast \approx 0.02$, ejecta base thicknesses $\vert \overrightarrow {CD}\vert$ grow linearly and are almost coincident for all depths considered in this work (the ejecta sheet is marginally thicker for smaller $h^\ast$, as expected from the slightly higher initial peak pressure). Thereafter, a bifurcation cleanly separates the impact outcomes: lamella ($h^\ast \leq 0.10$) and separate ejecta sheet ($h^\ast \geq 0.22$). In fact, for each $h^\ast \leq 0.10$, the evolution breaks away from the deep-pool linear trend exactly when the ejecta sheet is lengthening fastest, i.e. times coinciding with local maxima in figure 7(b). Taken together, the evolutions of ejecta sheet velocity (figure 7b) and base thickness (figure 8a) confirm that rapid lengthening results in ejecta sheets being stretched on shallow pools. This process can be seen visually in the free surfaces of figure 8(c).

Figure 8. ${We} = 345$ impact. The ejecta base thickness is generally computed as $\vert \overrightarrow {CD}\vert$ (see figure 2c). In panel (a), $h^\ast$ is varied, with $\hat {\mu }=1.0$ (fluid dynamic viscosity normalised by that of ethanol) fixed. In panel (b), $\hat {\mu }$ is varied to change ${Re}$ as shown in figure 1(a) (black markers), with $h^\ast = 0.32$ fixed. Orange arrows identify the same data point in the pink data series. (c) Free surface profiles around the ejecta sheet at $t_u^\ast \in \{0.025,0.033,0.041\}$, for $h^\ast =0.10$ (green) and $h^\ast =0.32$ (red), with $\hat {\mu }=1.0$. Labels {B,C,D} indicate the characteristic points identified in figure 2(c). (d) Visualisations at $t_u^\ast =0.48$ where $h^\ast$ and $\hat {\mu }$ are varied, with the droplet (darker blue) and pool (lighter blue) fluids distinguished.

For the separate ejecta sheet outcome, strong interaction between the ejecta sheet and droplet free surface is required for a liquid bridge to build between them and separate the ejecta sheet from the pool, akin to the initial stages of coalescence. The bridge-building process can be seen in the $h^\ast =0.32$ (red) free surface profiles of figure 8(c), where point D propagates ahead of point C by $t_u^\ast =0.041$ (see figure S4a in the supplementary material for a graphical representation). These dynamics result in the ejecta sheet ‘climbing up’ the droplet, similar to the quartering case of Thoraval et al. (Reference Thoraval, Takehara, Etoh, Popinet, Ray, Josserand, Zaleski and Thoroddsen2012). They also appear to be key in allowing the adverse pressure gradient that exists for all $h^\ast$ to detach the ring vortex in the separate ejecta sheet outcome (compare $\omega$ fields at $t_u^\ast =0.443$ in figure 6) and requires some flow from the droplet into the ejecta sheet. Such flow should not occur with smaller $h^\ast$ for which a lamella is formed, as the stretching dynamics described above restrict flow from the droplet into the ejecta sheet at the critical moment. We included a passive tracer inside the droplet in our simulations to assess this hypothesis. In figure 8(d), for $h^\ast =0.10$, very little droplet fluid (darker blue) can be seen in the lamella and there is no folding of the internal fluid interface (i.e. little mixing), which occurs when there are conflicting velocities across it. These observations support the aforementioned hypothesis. A further factor reducing flow from the droplet into the ejecta sheet on shallow pools is that the peak velocity is generally directed from the pool for all $h^\ast$ (see the supplementary material for velocity snapshots – figure S5), which is enhanced by the confinement effect on shallow pools. Ultimately, without flow from the droplet and subsequent vortex detachment to separate it, the ejecta sheet preferentially collects fluid from the pool and develops into a lamella on shallower pools. Hence we conclude that a pressure confinement effect due to the proximity of the base on shallow pools restricts flow from the droplet into the ejecta sheet and prevents vortex separation from the free surface, resulting in the formation of a lamella.

3.4. Comparison with the Re transition

We now apply our understanding of the depth transition developed in § 3.3 to explore the associated Re transition studied principally by Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Toole, Fezzaa and Deegan2012) and Agbaglah et al. (Reference Agbaglah, Thoraval, Thoroddsen, Zhang, Fezzaa and Deegan2015). To generate the required data, we carried out further simulations with different fluid viscosities $\hat {\mu }\in [0.8,5.0]$, where $\hat {\mu }$ is the dynamic viscosity normalised by the value for ethanol. Hence, ${Re}\in [640,3980]$ (see figure 1a), with ${We}=345$ and $h^\ast =0.32$ fixed. Consistent with the lamella-separate ejecta sheet boundary (olive line in figure 1a) of Zhang et al., a lamella forms in our simulations only for $\hat {\mu }\geq 3.0$.

The evolution of ejecta base thickness when changing viscosity is shown in figure 8(b), with time normalised by $\mu D/\sigma$ to facilitate comparison (this quantity is denoted $t_\mu ^\ast$). Unlike for the depth transition (figure 8a), we do not observe a clear difference (much less a bifurcation) in the thickness evolution between different impact outcomes. More surprisingly, the long-term thickness evolution is not consistent for all experiments sharing the same impact outcome. For instance, the ejecta base thickness monotonically increases for $\hat {\mu }\in \{0.8,1.0\}$ (consistent with the $h^\ast =0.32$ data in figure 8a), whilst it starts to decrease at $t_\mu ^\ast \approx 0.30$ for $\hat {\mu }\in \{1.2,1.5\}$, despite these four viscosities sharing the same impact outcome. This observation contrasts with the data in figure 8(a), where the evolutions realign for all depths with a given outcome following the bifurcation. It is also recognised that the ejecta sheet angle (between the horizontal and normal to its base) is important in determining its subsequent dynamics for different ${Re}$ (Thoraval et al. Reference Thoraval, Takehara, Etoh, Popinet, Ray, Josserand, Zaleski and Thoroddsen2012). However, for all $h^\ast$ we studied (at ${We}=345$), the angles are very similar until the bifurcation in figure 8(a) (figure S4b in the supplementary material), which suggests that the ejecta sheet angle does not play a major role in the depth transition.

Nevertheless, there is a common factor distinguishing the outcomes (lamella versus separate ejecta sheet) whether via a Re or depth transition: is a liquid bridge built between the droplet and ejecta sheet? For the depth transition, the early-time dynamics affect the ejecta base thickness, which controls whether fluid flows from the droplet into the ejecta sheet, and therefore whether the liquid bridge expands. Whilst figure 8(b) does not indicate any clear distinction between outcomes, it does confirm that ejecta sheet bases are initially thicker for more viscous impacts – in fact, the thickness decreases linearly with increasing Re (Agbaglah & Deegan Reference Agbaglah and Deegan2014). We suggest that the resulting increased volume flux from the pool associated with a higher fluid viscosity (see figure 5 of Agbaglah et al. Reference Agbaglah, Thoraval, Thoroddsen, Zhang, Fezzaa and Deegan2015) acts to thicken the ejecta sheet (see later times in figure 8b) into a lamella, thereby suppressing expansion the liquid bridge. This proposition is supported by the observation of Agbaglah et al. (Reference Agbaglah, Thoraval, Thoroddsen, Zhang, Fezzaa and Deegan2015) that all separate ejecta sheet (vortex shedding) cases on deep pools exhibit a minimum in the free surface curvature close to where the ejecta sheet and droplet join. In particular, this explanation offers a way to reconcile the similar dynamics associated with the depth and ${Re}$ transitions consistent with their different origins.