This draft was prepared using the LaTeX style file belonging to the Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1

Water entry of spheres at various contact

angles
Nathan B. Speirs1 , Mohammad Mansoor1 , Jesse Belden2 and Tadd
T. Truscott1 †
1
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT
84322, USA
2
Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport, 1176 Howell Street, Newport, Rhode
Island 02841, USA.

(Received xx; revised xx; accepted xx)

It is well known that the water entry of a sphere causes cavity formation above a critical
impact velocity as a function of the solid-liquid contact angle (Duez et al. 2007). Using
a rough sphere with a contact angle of 120◦ , Aristoff & Bush (2009) showed that there
are four different cavity shapes dependent on the Bond and Weber numbers (i.e., quasi-
static, shallow, deep and surface). We experimentally alter the Bond number, Weber
number and contact angle of smooth spheres and find two key additions to the literature:
1) Cavity shape also depends on the contact angle; 2) the absence of a splash crown at
low Weber number results in cavity formation below the predicted critical velocity. In
addition, we find an alternate scaling for the Bond and Weber numbers that predicts
cavity shapes for various impacting bodies (e.g., spheres, multi-droplet streams and jets)
on the same regime diagram, thus, merging the often separated studies of solid-liquid
and liquid-liquid impact in the literature.

1. Introduction
At the turn of the millennium a resurgence of interest occurred in water entry studies.
During this time, two foundational papers on cavity formation and cavity dynamics were
published, which describe the regimes into which all other water entry studies fall. The
first was written by Duez et al. (2007) who investigated when impacting spheres form air
cavities, as shown in figure 1b-e, and when they do not, as shown in figure 1a. The second
paper, written by Aristoff & Bush (2009), came along a couple of years later discussing
the four different shapes or types of cavities that form once the appropriate conditions
are met for cavity formation (shown in figure 1b-e). We will now examine each of these
papers in turn, discussing their findings, an unaddressed discrepancy between the two,
and how this paper expands our understanding of the conditions in which these five water
entry regimes occur.
Duez et al. (2007) found that cavity formation of smooth spheres occurs above a critical
velocity Ucr that is a function of the advancing static contact angle θ. Hydrophilic spheres
(θ < 90◦ ) form cavities above Ucr ≈ 7.2 m/s in water. The critical velocity decreases for
hydrophobic spheres (θ > 90◦ ) going to zero as θ goes to 180◦ . They explain this finding
by discussing the contact-line stability of the thin, upward-moving film or splash that
forms around the circumference of the sphere upon impact. When the splash adheres
to the sphere (below the critical velocity) no cavity forms. When it separates from the
sphere, air gets pulled behind the sphere and a cavity forms.
† Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
2 N. B. Speirs et al.
a) b) c) d) e) f)
electromagnet adjustable height

sphere

light
cameras board

600 mm
tank

410 mm

Figure 1. A 2 mm diameter sphere impacts the water surface creating various cavity types.
In a) the wetting angle is θ = 101.0◦ and the sphere impacts at 4.43 m/s without forming a
cavity. In b) through e) the sphere has a wetting angle of θ = 141.1◦ and impacts with velocities
0.24 m/s, 1.40 m/s, 2.80 m/s, and 4.43 m/s forming quasi-static, shallow, deep, and surface seal
cavities, respectively. See supplementary movies 1-5. f) The basic experimental setup is shown
with two high-speed camera viewing the impact events above and below the free surface.

Aristoff & Bush (2009) studied the water entry of spheres with one contact angle,
θ = 120 ± 5◦ , and various impact velocities and sphere diameters. Their expansive data
set found cavities forming at all impact velocities with four distinct shapes defined by
their collapse or pinch-off location, each of which occurs at a specific location on a
Bond-Weber plot. At the lowest Weber number, W e, they describe quasi-static seal, in
which pinch-off occurs on or very near the sphere surface (figure 1b). At higher W e
both shallow and deep seal are seen. Shallow seal occurs at lower Bond number, Bo,
where surface tension dominates and the pinch-off depth is on the order of the capillary
length (figure 1c). Deep seal occurs at higher Bo, where gravitational forces dominate
and pinch-off occurs about half way between the pool surface and the sphere (figure 1d).
Surface seal occurs at the highest W e, wherein the splash created upon impact collapses
inward due to air pressure and surface tension (Marston et al. 2016) sealing at the pool
surface (figure 1e).
According to Duez et al. (2007), at the contact angle used by Aristoff & Bush (2009)
(θ = 120◦ ), cavities should not form below Ucr = 2.14 m/s. Yet Aristoff & Bush report
quasi-static, shallow and deep seal cavities at velocities below this value. We can explain
this discrepancy by the high surface roughness of the coating used by Aristoff & Bush,
Cytonix WX2100, which, in our own testing we have found to have a large ten-point-
mean roughness of Rz = 50.2 ± 21.4 µm. Zhao et al. (2014) found that Ucr is also a
function of the sphere roughness Rz , with increasing roughness leading to lower values of
Ucr . Cavities should always form at the above value of Rz and hence the cavity formation
described in work of Aristoff & Bush (2009) is due to both the high contact angle and
high roughness.
Since these foundational works, several other important studies have come forth. Im-
portant topics include: the water entry of spinning spheres (Truscott & Techet 2009a,b),
the effect of sphere density (Aristoff et al. 2010), the occurrence of multiple pinch-off
events (Mansoor et al. 2014), the buckling instability in the crown (Marston et al. 2016),
the effects of deformability (Hurd et al. 2017), the unsteady forces during entry (Truscott
et al. 2012), and many more described in the annual review by Truscott et al. (2014).
Although these works have contributed much to our understanding of water entry,
we will return our focus to the foundational works discussed above and examine how
the cavity formation regimes respond to experimentally varying the wetting angle θ, the
sphere diameter d and the impact velocity Uo for smooth spheres. We will explain the
 Water entry of spheres at various contact angles 3

Coating θ Rz (µm)
Clean Steel 86.1 ± 2.2◦ 0.6 ± 0.3
Turtle Wax Super Hard Shell 101.0 ± 4.7◦ 0.9 ± 0.2
Cytonix WX2100 116.6 ± 7.0◦ 50.2 ± 21.4
Glaco Mirror Coat Zero 141.1 ± 3.8◦ 1.0 ± 0.5
Table 1. List of coatings with their advancing static contact angle θ and ten point mean
roughness Rz , with the mean and 95% confidence window reported.

physics using the Bond, Weber, and Froude numbers, which we define as Bo = ρgd2 /σ,
W e = ρUo2 d/σ and F r = Uo2 /gd, respectively, where ρ is the liquid density, g is the
acceleration of gravity and σ is the surface tension. We use the diameter d instead of the
sphere radius as the appropriate length scale in defining the above dimensionless numbers
as it results in transitional behaviors around a value of one. In § 4 we will also examine
an alternate method of defining the Bond, Weber, and Froude numbers that allows us to
predict the cavity types for various impacting bodies on the same regime diagram.

2. Experimental setup and description

Figure 1f shows the experimental setup used in this study. Various diameter stainless
steel spheres (ds = 1 to 18 mm) of specific gravity 7.83 are dropped from an electromagnet
onto a tank of water. Two high-speed cameras record the impact on the free-surface,
imaging at 2,500 frames per second both above and below the surface from the side.
The height of the electromagnet controls the impact velocity of the spheres Uo , which
is varied from 0.24 to 10.39 m/s. To vary the advancing static contact angle θ three
different coatings (or the lack thereof) are used: clean steel, Turtle Wax Super Hard Shell
car wax, and Glaco Mirror Coat Zero. Values of θ and the ten point mean roughness Rz
are shown in table 1. Roughness measurements are obtained using a profilometer. The
spheres are prepared by first washing with soap and water and then rinsing with ethyl
alcohol. Coatings are then applied and allowed to dry before testing. After each test the
spheres are dried and then recoated to ensure consistent surface properties.
From the high-speed videos we determine whether or not a cavity forms. If a cavity does
form, the cavity type is determined using the definitions described by Aristoff & Bush
(2009). Measurements are also taken from the videos to find cavity depths, diameters,
and the time to pinch-off. The pinch-off depth hp is defined as the distance from the
undisturbed free surface to the location where the cavity walls or splash pinch together
or collapse (positive downward). The depth of the bottom of the sphere at the time of
pinch-off, hb , is also measured from the undisturbed free surface. The pinch-off time tp
is defined as the time from impact to the pinch-off event. In cases where cavities do not
form, we define the pinch-off time tp as the time when the splash closes on the top of the
sphere and the pinch-off depth hp as the location of the top of the sphere at this time.
The cavity diameter is measured at discrete depths and times and the maximum cavity
diameter over time is found at discrete depths, yielding dc,max (z). The average of these
maximum diameters over all depths defines dc .

3. Cavity formation and types

Multiple sphere diameters were tested over a large range of impact velocities for each
contact angle. From these data we produce Bo-W e plots similar to Aristoff & Bush
4 N. B. Speirs et al.
(2009) to examine how the cavity regimes change with the contact angle (figure 2). The
regime diagram for θ = 86.1◦ is shown in figure 2a. Duez et al. (2007) predict the critical
velocity for cavity formation for a hydrophilic sphere to be Ucr = 0.1σ/µ = 7.2 m/s,
which is represented by the dashed line in figure 2a. Surface seal cavities occur above
this dashed line (as shown in figure 1e) and no cavity formation is observed just below it
(figure 1a). Once W e has decreased below about 240, cavities start to form again, which
is unexpected in light of the work of Duez et al. (2007). Below W e ≈ 240 spheres always
form quasi-static seal cavities.
Looking at the regime diagram for θ = 101.0◦ (figure 2b) we see a similar trend to
θ = 86.1◦ with a few differences. The critical velocity for cavity formation as predicted
by Duez et al. has decreased due to the increased contact angle and is defined by Ucr =
7 σ 3
270 µ (π − θ) = 4.89 m/s. The critical W e below which cavities form again does not
changed with the increase in θ. Below W e ≈ 240 mostly quasi-static seal cavities form
with the exception of a few shallow seal cavities at low Bo, for which the volume of air
entrained with the sphere is small, but approximately equal to the volume of the sphere
(this is consistent with the cut-off defined by Aristoff & Bush (2009)).
To understand why cavities form below a W e ≈ 240 we look at what happens as
the velocity or W e increases for a given sphere diameter or Bo. Figure 3a shows the
impact of a 10 mm diameter sphere at various W e when the sphere is approximately half
submerged. At the lowest W e a short, thick rim forms around the edge of the sphere.
This rim does not have enough upward velocity to climb up the surface of the sphere
and meet itself at the pole to prevent cavity formation (Duez et al. 2007). Hence, as
the sphere descends, the free-surface is pulled down with the sphere and a quasi-static
seal cavity forms in its wake (figure 3b & c, W e = 7.9). As W e increases the rim thins
and grows taller due to its increasing upward velocity, which allows it to begin to climb
the surface of the sphere as seen in figure 3a at W e = 109. The upward velocity and
adherence of the rim to the sphere directly competes with the rate of sphere submergence.
This causes the water to move up and around the top of the sphere faster as it descends
below the original free-surface plane, resulting in less air entrainment and the formation
of increasingly smaller cavities. Hence, the pinch-off time tp , depth of the sphere at pinch-
off hb , and the pinch-off depth hp , all decrease with increasing W e which can be seen
qualitatively in figure 3 and quantitatively in figure 4. Once W e >≈ 240 (dotted line) the
rim has formed into a splash which has enough upward velocity to reach the top of the
sphere by the time the top of the sphere has descended to the level of the undisturbed
free-surface (hp = 0 and hb = 1, figure 4b & c), as seen at W e = 269 in figure 3b &
c. Hence, the formation of the splash (which adheres to the sphere) suppresses cavity
formation and we will call the dotted lines in figures 2a & b and 3 the splash formation
line.
As W e increases above the splash formation line the splash climbs up the sphere surface
faster causing hp to gradually rise above the free-surface (figure 4c), and decreasing both
tp (figure 4a) and hb (figure 4b). Around Ucr , a small asymmetric cavity forms with
the splash quickly doming over the top (figure 3, W e = 2696). Once Ucr is reached,
the splash has enough velocity to separate from the sphere and a large surface seal
cavity forms (figure 3, W e = 8081). Hence, we see that cavity formation or suppression
is governed by the formation and separation of the splash. Also, we find that cavity
formation occurs in two regimes: at low enough W e that a splash does not form, and at
high enough impact velocity that the splash separates from the sphere. The boundaries
of the no cavity regime are defined by splash formation and what we will call Duez cavity
formation (dotted and dashed lines in figure 2a & b and 3, respectively).
Surface seal is caused by the collapse of the splash crown. In the ideal cases typically
 Water entry of spheres at various contact angles 5
a) b)
5 5
10 10
surface surface
no cavity no cavity
4 quasi-static 4 shallow
10 10
rebound quasi-static
rebound
103 103

2 2
10 10

1 1
10 10

100 100

-1 -1
10 10
10-1 100 101 102 10-1 100 101 102

c) d)
5 5
10 10
surface surface
deep deep
4 shallow 4 shallow
10 10
quasi-static quasi-static
rebound
103 103

2 2
10 10

1 1
10 10

100 100

-1 -1
10 10
10-1 100 101 102 10-1 100 101 102

Figure 2. The cavity regimes for various contact angles are shown for a) θ = 86.1◦ , b)
θ = 101.1◦ , c) θ = 120◦ and Rz = 50 µm (remade from Aristoff & Bush (2009)) and d)
θ = 141.1◦ . All of the spheres are smooth according to Zhao et al. (2014) except c) (table 1).
The dotted and dashed lines in a) and b) represent splash formation and Duez cavity formation,
respectively. The regime separation lines in c) and d) are not the same as in a) and b). Instead
they come from the predictions of Aristoff & Bush (2009). Pictures of the different regimes can
be seen in figure 1a-e.

depicted in the literature, the collapse of the crown, also know as dome over, causes a
complete seal between the air in the cavity and the atmosphere (see supplementary movie
5). Figure 5 shows an event in which a complete seal does not occur during dome over.
At t = 6.4 ms the splash crown has domed over and the air cavity behind the sphere
begins to pull away from the free surface of the pool. At t = 8.0 − 9.6 ms air continues
to enter the cavity as evidenced by the small conical structure that forms and connects
the top of the cavity to the surface of the pool. The conical structure then collapses
radially slightly below the surface providing a complete seal (t = 11.2 ms). These partial
surface seal events could be caused by an asymmetric dome over of the splash crown, that
leaves a small hole or by the formation of the thin-filmed bags observed by Marston et al.
6 N. B. Speirs et al.
We = 7.9 26.6 54.5 109 269 539 1077 2696 8081
a)

b)

c)

Figure 3. The development of the splash and progression of cavity regimes are shown for
increasing W e, for d = 10 mm and θ = 101.1◦ . Each column shows different times and/or views
of the same impact event. In a) we show the development of the rim or splash when the sphere is
approximately half submerged. In b) and c) we show the frame just prior to pinch-off or closure
of the splash above the sphere as viewed from above and below the pool surface, respectively.
The dotted and dashed lines represent splash formation and Duez cavity formation, respectively,
and the symbols indicated the cavity type, which are all shown in figure 2b.

a) b) c)
3 2.5
quasi
1 no cavity
2.5 2
2
1.5 0.5
1.5
1
1 0

0.5 0.5
-0.5
0 0
100 102 104 100 102 104 100 102 104

Figure 4. a) The non-dimensional pinch-off time tp , depth of the bottom of the sphere at
pinch-off hb (inset) and b) the pinch-off depth hp scale with W ea for the quasi-static and
no cavity regimes for θ = 86.1◦ and 101.0◦ . Figure 3c shows the same trends for hb and hp
qualitatively except that here the surface seal data is not shown as transition occurs at a constant
velocity and the data does not collapse with W ea . The dotted line represents the splash formation
line. Note that the Weber number and dimensionless pinch-off time are defined using the average
sphere velocity from initial impact to full submergence Ua (W ea = ρUa2 d/σ). This accounts for
the contiuned acceleration of the sphere when it has not reached the terminal velocity in water
by the time it impacts (e.g., an 18 mm sphere falling 3 mm). The legend in b) applies to all
three plots.

(2016) that pop leaving holes in the crown. Partial surface seal occurs most commonly
just above the critical velocity for cavity formation and at lower contact angles.
At the highest contact angle tested, when θ = 141.1◦ Duez et al. (2007) predict that
7 σ 3
cavities should form above a critical velocity of Ucr = 270 µ (π − θ) = 0.58 m/s. This
velocity gives W e < 240 for all sphere diameters tested. Hence, the Duez cavity formation
line lies below the splash formation line at all Bo tested and we would expect cavities to
form at all impact velocities. This is indeed the case as shown in figure 2d. Comparing
figure 2d to the data obtained by Aristoff & Bush (2009) for rough spheres with θ = 120◦
(shown in figure 2c) we see that the regime locations for the two coatings are very similar.
Discrepancies in the cut off between quasi-static seal and shallow or deep seal are possibly
due to the lower atmospheric pressure in Logan, Utah (elevation of 1382 m) where our
 Water entry of spheres at various contact angles 7
a)

b)

t = 0 ms 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 8.0 9.6 11.2 12.8

◦
Figure 5. A sphere with d = 10 mm and θ = 101.1 impacts the pool surface at U = 6.26
m/s forming a surface seal cavity with the above and below water views shown in a) and b)
respectively. The splash crown does not always provide a complete seal of the cavity during dome
over. Sometimes it mostly seals, but allows some air continue to enter the cavity as shown by
the conical air pocket near the surface and above the main portion of the cavity at t = 9.6 ms.
The conical portion of the cavity then collapses radially (t = 11.2 − 12.8 ms). See supplementary
movie 6.

experiments were performed and Cambridge, Massachusetts (elevation of 40 m) where the

experiments of Aristoff & Bush (2009) were performed, with the lower pressure leading
to less air entrainment as shown by Gilbarg & Anderson (1948), persisting for larger W e.
Discrepancies could also be due to the difference in roughness or the difference in wetting
angle, or all three effects combined.
Spheres rebound off of the pool surface at the lowest Bo and W e tested for all three
contact angles. Figure 2 shows that transition from water entry to rebound occurs when
W e = 1 and Bo < 1. In this parameter space surface tension dominates over both inertial
and gravitational forces and hence, neither the sphere’s inertia nor its weight cause it to
enter the water surface. Figure 2 also shows that rebound is slightly dependent on the
sphere’s contact angle, with higher contact angles leading to rebound at higher Bo and
W e.

4. A new scaling
When defining dimensionless numbers it is always difficult to pick the appropriate
length and velocity scales to describe the physics of the problem. Historically in water
entry research, the sphere diameter or radius has been chosen as the length scale and the
initial impact velocity for the velocity scale (Truscott et al. 2014). As the cavity collapse
is likely to be a function of the cavity characteristics, it could be insightful to redefine
the appropriate dimensionless numbers using cavity length and velocity scales. We define
the cavity Weber number as W ec = ρUc2 dc /σ, the cavity Bond number as Boc = ρgd2c /σ
and the cavity Froude number as F rc = Uc2 /gdc , where dc is the cavity diameter defined
in §2 and Uc is the downward cavity velocity, which we set equal to the initial sphere
impact velocity Uo as they are approximately the same. Plotting a regime diagram with
the cavity scaling for θ = 141.1◦ , we see in figure 6 that Boc and W ec separate the cavity
types for shallow, deep and surface seal (hollow symbols). Quasi-static seal cavities are
not included because they are not cylindrical and they are specific to sphere entry as
discussed more in the next paragraph.
Speirs et al. (2018) investigated the water entry of multi-droplet streams and jets and
found that shallow, deep and surface seal cavities occur for liquid-liquid impact as well.
In that paper we predicted the cavity seal types for both multi-droplet streams and jets
on the same Bo-W e regime diagram using a scaling based on the cavity diameter and no
8 N. B. Speirs et al.

105
surface
deep
shallow

104

103

102

101
10-1 100 101 102

Figure 6. The cavity regimes can be predicted for various impacting bodies using the cavity
diameter dc and cavity velocity Uc to define Boc and W ec . The hollow symbols are for spheres
and the solid symbols are for multi-droplet streams and jets. The dash-dotted line separating
the shallow and deep seal regimes is found by equating the dimensionless pinch-off times for
shallow and deep seal (figure 7). The dashed line dividing deep and surface seal is drawn by
modifying the cutoffs found by Aristoff & Bush (2009) and Birkhoff & Isaacs (1951).

alteration of the impact velocity. We can collapse those data onto the Boc -W ec regime
diagram for spheres using dc and Uc to define Boc and W ec as in figure 6. The cavity
velocity Uc is set equal to one half the impacting stream velocity for simplicity, which
is shown to be a good approximation for jets in Speirs et al. (2018). Using this scaling,
figure 6 shows that the regimes for all three water entry types (spheres, liquid jets and
liquid multi-droplet streams) can be predicted in the same Boc -W ec parameter space.
This scaling suggests that we can predict the pinch-off type of a cavity if we know its
diameter and downward velocity, regardless of the type of impacting body used.
The cavity nondimensional pinch-off times, tp Uc /dc , of the sphere, multi-droplet stream
and jet data can be predicted on the same plot for shallow and deep seal using W ec
1/2
and F rc , respectively. Figure 7a shows that tp Uc /dc scales with W ec for shallow
1/3
seal and figure 7b shows that tp Uc /dc scales with F rc for deep seal. Equating these
nondimensional pinch-off times and rearranging gives the cut-off between the shallow
and deep seal regimes as shown by the dash-dotted line in figure 6 (W ec = 1, 525Bo−2 c ).
To predict the cut-off for surface seal we look at previous works. Aristoff & Bush (2009)
used an empirical fit of W e = 640 to define the cut-off for surface seal at low Bo while at
high Bo Birkhoff & Isaacs (1951) predicted the cut-off to occur at F r = 1/12800(ρ/ρa )2 ,
where ρa is the air density. We can use these results to find the surface seal cut-off in terms
of W ec and F rc . At low Boc , the cut-off is W ec = 640(dc /d)mean , where (dc /d)mean ≈ 2.5
is the mean cavity to sphere diameter ratio for the deep and surface seal data just above
and below the transition at low Boc . This leads to a transition at W ec = 1600. At high
Boc , the cut-off is F rc = 1/12800(ρ/ρa )2 (d/dc )mean , where (d/dc )mean ≈ 1.6 is the mean
for the deep and surface seal data just above and below the transition at high Boc . This
leads to a transition at F rc = 44 or W ec = 44Boc . These transitional lines are shown in
figure 6 with the dashed line and appropriately divide the deep and surface seal regimes.
It is interesting to note that the shallow, deep and surface seal transition lines intersect
at Boc = 1, indicating that when surface tension dominates over gravitational forces,
shallow seal will always occur instead of deep.
 Water entry of spheres at various contact angles 9
a) b)
102 102

3
1

101 101

2
1

0 0
10 1 10 0
10 102 103 10 101 102 103 104

Figure 7. The nondimensional cavity pinch-off time scales with W ec and F rc for a) shallow
and b) deep seal for spheres with contact angle θ = 141.1◦ (hollow symbols) and multi-droplet
streams and jets (solid symbols). The dashed lines are fits to the data with powers forced to
1/2 1/3
tp Uc /dc = 0.67W ec for shallow seal and tp Uc /dc = 2.27F rc for deep seal.

a) b)
3.5 3.5
surface
3 deep 3
shallow
2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
101 102 103 104 105 100 101 102 103 104

Figure 8. The cavity diameter for the impact of spheres with θ = 141.1◦ scales with W e for
shallow and surface seal a) and F r for deep seal b). The solid and dashed lines in a) are least
square regressions with dc /d = 0.0074W e + 1 for shallow seal and dc /d = 4952W e−1.24 + 1.64
for surface seal. The curved dotted line in b) is a fit for the deep seal data (dc /d = 0.73F r0.18 ),
but for F r < 7 the cavity diameter approaches the sphere diameter, dcav /d = 1 marked by the
horizontal dotted line.

Seeing the importance of the cavity diameter in calculating Boc and W ec , we now scale
dc for each pinch-off type. Plotting the nondimensional cavity diameter dc /d against W e
we see in figure 8a that the cavity diameter for the shallow seal data is a function of W e
and can be predicted with a linear fit of dc /d = 0.0074W e + 1, where the y-intercept
is forced to equal one sphere diameter. We can also predict the cavity diameter for the
surface seal data using W e with the fit dc /d = 4952W e−1.24 + 1.64. As commonly seen,
the deep seal data scales better with F r as shown in figure 8b and can be predicted by
dc /d = 0.73F r0.18 for high F r, but below F r ≈ 7 the ratio dc /d asymptotes to one.

5. Conclusion
Cavity formation is dependent on the formation and behavior of the splash crown.
Three crown behaviors exist. 1) At low W e a slow-moving, thick rim forms around the
sphere, which allows air to entrain in the wake of the sphere forming small cavities.
2) At higher W e the crown thins and gains velocity which allows it to adhere to the
sphere, climb the surface, and meet at the apex to preventing cavity formation. 3) Once
the critical velocity for cavity formation is reached the splash crown separates from the
10 N. B. Speirs et al.
sphere forming the classical cavities discussed above and in previous works. The cutoffs
between these behaviors are defined by splash formation and Duez cavity formation.
For hydrophilic and slightly hydrophobic spheres, the inception of splash formation and
adherence to the sphere decreases the cavity size, compared to higher contact angles,
leading to quasi-static seal and small shallow seal cavities. When the contact angle is
high enough (θ & 140◦ ) or the sphere is rough (Zhao et al. 2014), cavities form at all
impact velocities because the splash crown either does not form or it separates from the
sphere. These cavity formation regimes are predicted by Aristoff & Bush (2009). When
cavity formation is not inhibited by the splash, the pinch-off type can be predicted by the
cavity diameter and downward cavity velocity regardless of the type of impacting body
(e.g., sphere, jet, or multi-droplet stream). This forms a more complete picture, linking
the impact of solids and liquids on liquid pools.

6. Acknowledgments
N.B.S., T.T.T. and J.B. acknowledge funding from the Office of Naval Research,
Navy Undersea Research Program (grant N0001414WX00811), monitored by Ms. Maria
Medeiros. J.B. acknowledges funding from the Naval Undersea Warfare Center In-House
Laboratory Independent Research program, monitored by Mr. Neil Dubois. N.B.S and
T.T.T acknowledge funding from the Utah State University Research and Graduate
Studies Development Grant Program.

REFERENCES
Aristoff, J. M. & Bush, J. W. M. 2009 Water entry of small hydrophobic spheres. Journal
of Fluid Mechanics 619, 45–78.
Aristoff, J. M., Truscott, T. T., Techet, A. H. & Bush, J. W. M. 2010 The water entry
of decelerating spheres. Physics of Fluids 22 (3).
Birkhoff, G. & Isaacs, R. 1951 Transient cavities in air-water entry. Navord Report 1490.
Tech. Rep.
Duez, C., Ybert, C., Clanet, C. & Bocquet, L. 2007 Making a splash with water repellency.
Nat Phys 3 (3), 180–183.
Gilbarg, D. & Anderson, R. A. 1948 Influence of atmospheric pressure on the phenomena
accompnaying the entry of spheres into water. J. Appl. Phys. 19, 127–139.
Hurd, R. C., Belden, J., Jandron, M. A., Fanning, D. T., Bower, A. F. & Truscott,
T. T. 2017 Water entry of deformable spheres. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 824, 912–930.
Mansoor, M. M., Marston, J. O., Vakarelski, I. U. & Thoroddsen, S. T. 2014 Water
entry without surface seal: extended cavity formation. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 743,
295–326.
Marston, J. O., Truscott, T. T., Speirs, N. B., Mansoor, M. M. & Thoroddsen, S. T.
2016 Crown sealing and buckling instability during water entry of spheres. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics 794, 506–529.
Speirs, N. B., Pan, Z., Belden, J. & Truscott, T. T. 2018 The water entry of multi-droplet
streams and jets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 844, 1084–1111.
Truscott, T. T., Epps, B. P. & Belden, J. 2014 Water entry of projectiles. Annual Review
of Fluid Mechanics 46 (1), 355–378.
Truscott, T. T., Epps, B. P. & Techet, A. H. 2012 Unsteady forces on spheres during
free-surface water entry. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 704, 173–210.
Truscott, T. T. & Techet, A. H. 2009a A spin on cavity formation during water entry of
hydrophobic and hydrophilic spheres. Physics of Fluids 21 (12), 121703.
Truscott, T. T. & Techet, A. H. 2009b Water entry of spinning spheres. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics 625, 135–165.
Zhao, M.-H., Chen, X.-P. & Wang, Q. 2014 Wetting failure of hydrophilic surfaces promoted
by surface roughness. Scientific Reports 4, 5376.