Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 50 references

Impact of viscoelastic polymer solution droplets on a granular bed

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Viscoelastic polymer droplets reach the cratering transition at lower impact energies than Newtonian droplets.

desk verdict The paper finds viscoelastic droplets reach the plateau-to-power-law crater transition at lower impact energies than Newtonian ones, with similar sizes in each regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.00319 v1 pith:FEKNJDT2 submitted 2026-05-29 cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn

Jooyeon Park , Theophile Meiller , Sreeram Rajesh , Alban Sauret This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.flu-dyn
keywords viscoelasticdropletsgranularbedimpactcratermorphologypolyethyleneoxideenergyOhnesorgenumberNewtoniancomparisonpower-lawregime
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper examines the craters formed when viscoelastic polyethylene oxide droplets strike a dry granular bed and compares the results directly to those from Newtonian liquids across a range of impact energies and Ohnesorge numbers. Crater diameter stays roughly constant in a low-energy plateau before growing according to a power law, yet the switch between these regimes occurs at lower energies for the polymer solutions even though the plateau size and the power-law slope stay nearly identical. This difference implies that the elastic character of the liquid alters how the drop's kinetic energy is divided between its own deformation and the work done on the grains. The comparison is relevant to powder processing, binder jetting, and spray deposition because those applications depend on controlled liquid-grain interactions during impact.

What carries the argument

The transition impact energy separating the low-energy plateau regime from the power-law growth regime in plots of crater diameter versus impact energy.

What would settle it

Prepare Newtonian and viscoelastic droplets with identical viscosity, surface tension, and density, impact them on granular beds prepared to the same packing density and moisture level, and measure whether the transition energy difference persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Crater morphology changes with impact energy, and this evolution occurs at lower energies for drops of polymer solution, consistent with their distinct liquid-grain interactions during impact. The crater diameter exhibits two distinct regimes: a low-energy plateau and a power-law growth at higher impact energies. Although the plateau size and the power law remain nearly unchanged, viscoelastic droplets reach the transition at lower impact energy than Newtonian droplets. This suggests that viscoelasticity modifies how the impact energy is partitioned between droplet deformation and dissipation in the granular bed.

Load-bearing premise

The observed differences in transition energy are caused by viscoelasticity rather than uncontrolled variations in viscosity, surface tension, density, or granular bed packing and moisture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Crater diameter remains in a low-energy plateau before entering power-law growth for both droplet types.
  • The transition from plateau to power-law growth occurs at lower impact energies for viscoelastic droplets.
  • The size of the plateau and the exponent of the power law stay nearly the same regardless of viscoelasticity.
  • The shift in transition energy is observed consistently over a wide range of Ohnesorge numbers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Binder jetting additive manufacturing may achieve target crater features with lower impact energies when using polymer solution binders.
  • Spray deposition for erosion control could operate at reduced energies while producing comparable deposition patterns.
  • Future experiments that hold every other fluid and bed property exactly fixed would isolate the viscoelastic contribution more cleanly.
  • The energy-partitioning effect may appear in other soft-matter impacts on porous or loose granular surfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript experimentally compares crater formation from viscoelastic PEO solution droplets versus Newtonian liquid droplets impacting a dry granular bed over a wide range of impact energies and Ohnesorge numbers. It reports that crater morphology evolves with impact energy in two regimes (low-energy plateau followed by power-law growth in diameter), with the transition occurring at lower impact energies for viscoelastic droplets while the plateau size and power-law scaling remain nearly unchanged; this is interpreted as viscoelasticity altering the partitioning of impact energy between droplet deformation and granular dissipation.

Significance. If the fluid-property matching and controls are robust, the work supplies a clear experimental distinction between viscoelastic and Newtonian impacts on granular beds, with direct relevance to binder jetting, spray deposition, and erosion control. The regime identification and the shift in transition energy constitute a falsifiable observation that could inform future models of complex-fluid granular interactions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the lower transition energy is caused by viscoelasticity modifying energy partitioning requires that all other variables (viscosity at impact shear rates, surface tension, density, bed packing density, and moisture) are matched between PEO solutions and Newtonian controls. The abstract states comparisons 'over a wide range of impact energies and Ohnesorge numbers,' yet polymer solutions are typically shear-thinning; an Oh match at a single shear rate does not guarantee equivalent effective viscosity during the high-strain-rate impact. Without explicit shear-rate-dependent rheology data or tabulated matching values in the methods, the causal attribution remains insecure.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and results would benefit from a brief statement of the number of repeats and error bars on the transition-energy values to allow readers to assess the statistical robustness of the reported shift.
  2. [Results] Figure captions (implied by the regime description) should explicitly label which data sets correspond to PEO versus Newtonian fluids and state the Oh range covered.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting this important methodological point. We respond to the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the lower transition energy is caused by viscoelasticity modifying energy partitioning requires that all other variables (viscosity at impact shear rates, surface tension, density, bed packing density, and moisture) are matched between PEO solutions and Newtonian controls. The abstract states comparisons 'over a wide range of impact energies and Ohnesorge numbers,' yet polymer solutions are typically shear-thinning; an Oh match at a single shear rate does not guarantee equivalent effective viscosity during the high-strain-rate impact. Without explicit shear-rate-dependent rheology data or tabulated matching values in the methods, the causal attribution remains insecure.

    Authors: We agree that secure attribution to viscoelasticity requires explicit confirmation that effective viscosities are matched at the high strain rates characteristic of impact. In the revised manuscript we will add shear-rate-dependent viscosity data for the PEO solutions and Newtonian controls over the relevant range (10^2–10^5 s^–1), together with estimates of the characteristic shear rates during the impact event. We will also include a table listing all fluid properties (zero-shear and effective viscosity, surface tension, density) and the criteria used to match the Newtonian controls, as well as bed packing fraction and moisture content. These additions will allow readers to assess the matching directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Purely experimental study with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

This manuscript reports experimental measurements of crater formation from droplet impacts, comparing PEO solutions to Newtonian liquids across impact energies and Ohnesorge numbers. No equations, fitted models, or theoretical derivations appear in the abstract or described full text; claims about transition energies and energy partitioning rest solely on direct observations of crater diameter regimes. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to support any result, and no predictions reduce to input parameters by construction. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks via controlled experiments, yielding no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are introduced; the work rests on standard experimental assumptions about fluid characterization and bed preparation.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Granular beds remain dry and uniformly packed across all trials.
    Required for reproducible crater morphology measurements.
  • domain assumption Ohnesorge number variation isolates viscoelastic effects from other fluid properties.
    Used to attribute differences to elasticity rather than viscosity or surface tension.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of viscoelastic polymer solution droplets on a granular bed." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEKNJDT2

@misc{pith2026260600319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of viscoelastic polymer solution droplets on a granular bed},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEKNJDT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.00319}
}
read the original abstract

The impact of polymer solution droplets on granular beds is relevant to powder processing, binder jetting additive manufacturing, and environmental applications involving erosion control or spray deposition, yet most controlled studies of drop--grain interactions have focused on Newtonian liquids. In this study, we experimentally investigate the impact of viscoelastic polyethylene oxide (PEO) droplets on a dry granular bed and compare the resulting cratering dynamics with those of Newtonian liquids over a wide range of impact energies and Ohnesorge numbers. Crater morphology changes with impact energy, and this evolution occurs at lower energies for drops of polymer solution, consistent with their distinct liquid--grain interactions during impact. The crater diameter exhibits two distinct regimes: a low-energy plateau and a power-law growth at higher impact energies. We identify the transition between these regimes and show that, although the plateau size and the power law remain nearly unchanged, viscoelastic droplets reach the transition at lower impact energy than Newtonian droplets. This suggests that viscoelasticity modifies how the impact energy is partitioned between droplet deformation and dissipation in the granular bed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00319 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of the experimental setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Impact dynamics at low velocity of Newtonian and 4M PEO solution drops on the granular bed. (a) and (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Representative top-view crater morphologies for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Three-dimensional profiles of representative crater morphologies (top) and corresponding side-view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Crater regime maps in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Final crater diameter normalized by the initial drop diameter, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Transition impact energy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a) Crater inner morphology diameter normalized by initial drop diameter, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The rescaled maximum spreading diameter, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Energy partition at the transition point as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Post-recoil imbibition timescale compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pimentel, Environ

    D. Pimentel, Environ. Dev. Sustain.8, 119 (2006)

    2006

  2. [2]

    D. R. Montgomery, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.104, 13268 (2007)

    2007

  3. [3]

    R.Zhao, Q.Zhang, H.Tjugito,andX.Cheng,Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 342 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    I. P. Prosser and P. Rustomji, Prog. Phys. Geogr.24, 179 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    Y. S. Joung and C. R. Buie, Nat. Commun.6, 6083 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Y. S. Joung, Z. Ge, and C. R. Buie, Nat. Commun.8, 14668 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    K. P. Hapgood, J. D. Litster, S. R. Biggs, and T. Howes, J. Colloid Interface Sci.253, 353 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    J. O. Marston, S. T. Thoroddsen, W. Ng, and R. Tan, Powder Technol.203, 223 (2010)

    2010

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    J. E. Lawrence, M. P. Lawrence, K. Fezzaa, S. J. Clark, and N. B. Crane, Addit. Manuf.89, 104269 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    D. S. Kumar and H. N. Emady, Chem. Eng. Sci.302, 120787 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Hong and E

    S. Hong and E. Y. Lee, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad.113, 161 (2016). 12

    2016

  4. [12]

    Markiewicz, E

    A. Markiewicz, E. Koda, M. Kiraga, G. Wrzesiński, K. Kozanka, M. Naliwajko, and M. D. Vaverková, Poly- mers16, 2490 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Hewitt, Pest Manag

    A. Hewitt, Pest Manag. Sci.80, 4819 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    A. C. Yu, H. Lopez Hernandez, A. H. Kim, L. M. Sta- pleton, R. J. Brand, E. T. Mellor, C. P. Bauer, G. D. McCurdy, A. J. Wolff III, D. Chan,et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.116, 20820 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Jayaprakash, S

    V. Jayaprakash, S. Rufer, S. Panat, and K. K. Varanasi, Soft Matter21, 3688 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    A. M. Worthington,A Study of Splashes(Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1908)

    1908

  9. [17]

    A. L. Yarin, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.38, 159 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Josserand and S

    C. Josserand and S. T. Thoroddsen, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.48, 365 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Rioboo, M

    R. Rioboo, M. Marengo, and C. Tropea, Exp. Fluids33, 112 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Che and O

    Z. Che and O. K. Matar, Soft Matter14, 1540 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    M. M. Driscoll, C. S. Stevens, and S. R. Nagel, Phys. Rev. E82, 036302 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Eggers, M

    J. Eggers, M. A. Fontelos, C. Josserand, and S. Zaleski, Phys. Fluids22, 062101 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Clanet, C

    C. Clanet, C. Beguin, D. Richard, and D. Quere, J. Fluid Mech.517, 199 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Dressaire, A

    E. Dressaire, A. Sauret, F. Boulogne, and H. A. Stone, Soft Matter12, 200 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Muschi, B

    M. Muschi, B. Brudieu, J. Teisseire, and A. Sauret, Soft Matter14, 1100 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Mobaseri, S

    A. Mobaseri, S. Kumar, and S. Cheng, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.122, e2500163122 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    R. Wang, Y. Shi, C. Zhang, and H. Ding, Phys. Fluids 34, 052103 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    O. Avni, D. Wang, M. Ravisankar, and R. Zenit, Maxi- mal spreading of impacting viscoelastic droplets (2026), arXiv:2601.15246 [physics.flu-dyn]

    2026 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Andreotti, Y

    B. Andreotti, Y. Forterre, and O. Pouliquen,Granular media: between fluid and solid(Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    De Jong, S.-C

    R. De Jong, S.-C. Zhao, and D. van der Meer, Phys. Rev. E95, 042901 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Trottet, D

    B. Trottet, D. Noto, D. J. Jerolmack, and H. N. Ulloa, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.122, e2519392122 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Saingier, A

    G. Saingier, A. Sauret, and P. Jop, Physical Review Let- ters118, 208001 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    R. S. Sharma and A. Sauret, Soft Matter21, 2193 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Katsuragi, J

    H. Katsuragi, J. Fluid Mech.675, 552 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Katsuragi, Phys

    H. Katsuragi, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 218001 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Delon, D

    G. Delon, D. Terwagne, S. Dorbolo, N. Vandewalle, and H. Caps, Phys. Rev. E84, 046320 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Nefzaoui and O

    E. Nefzaoui and O. Skurtys, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.41, 43 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Zhang, M

    Q. Zhang, M. Gao, R. Zhao, and X. Cheng, Phys. Rev. E92, 042205 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Zhang, H

    W. Zhang, H. Katsuragi, and K. Yamamoto, Soft Matter 20, 6120 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Bertola, Adv

    V. Bertola, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.193, 1 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Rozhkov, B

    A. Rozhkov, B. Prunet-Foch, and M. Vignes-Adler, Phys. Fluids15, 2006 (2003)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Rajesh, R

    S. Rajesh, R. S. Tinianov, J. Park, and A. Sauret, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08361 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Rajesh, V

    S. Rajesh, V. Thiévenaz, and A. Sauret, Soft Matter18, 3147 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    G. H. McKinley and T. Sridhar, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34, 375 (2002)

    2002

  37. [45]

    A. Roy, L. Mahadevan, and J.-L. Thiffeault, J. Fluid Mech.563, 283 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Pontier, S

    A. Pontier, S. Blosse, S. Viroulet, and L. Lacaze, Soft Matter21, 5935 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    De Jong, S.-C

    R. De Jong, S.-C. Zhao, D. Garcia-Gonzalez, G. Ver- duijn, and D. Van Der Meer, Soft Matter17, 120 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    S.-C. Zhao, R. de Jong, and D. van der Meer, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 054502 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    E. W. Washburn, Phys. Rev.17, 273 (1921)

    1921

  42. [50]

    Newtonian_movie1.mp4

    C. A. Browne and S. S. Datta, Sci. Adv.7, eabj2619 (2021). 13 Supporting Material for Impact of viscoelastic polymer solution droplets on a granular bed Jooyeon Park1, Théophile Meiller2, Sreeram Rajesh2, and Alban Sauret1,3 1Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.