Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-fx4k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T17:33:02.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Experiments on ice spikes and a simple growth model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Lesley Hill
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada E-mail: edward.lozowski@ualberta.ca
Edward Lozowski
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada E-mail: edward.lozowski@ualberta.ca
Russell D. Sampson
Affiliation:
Physical Sciences Department, Eastern Connecticut State University, Willimantic, Connecticut 06226, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ice-spike observations in nature have sparked much interest in the scientific and non-scientific communities alike, yet most research performed thus far has been largely qualitative. We have conducted a quantitative, systematic laboratory investigation in order to assess theories explaining ice-spike growth and to determine the conditions conducive to it. We observed ice-spike growth using time-lapse digital photography, using two water types in two different containers. We observed that ice spikes occurred much more frequently in distilled water than in tap water. Digital images were analyzed to determine the growth rate of the ice spikes. Water temperature was recorded throughout the freezing process, and the cooling rate was used to estimate a bulk heat transfer coefficient. Finally, a simple model, based on mass conservation, was derived and was found to give useful predictions of ice-spike growth rate.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2004
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Ice spikes near the tips of icicles hanging below a roof, observed by R. D. Sampson in Mansfield Center, Connecticut, 18 February 2003. The air temperature at the time of ice-spike growth was about -4.4°C.

Figure 1

Table 1. Ice-spike occurrence statistics

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Ice spike grown using distilled water in a Lexan container. Amillimeter-scale grid is affixed to the front surface of the container.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Ice-spike growth-rate variation with time. The plotted data were obtained by analysis of digital photographs of an ice spike grown in a Lexan container using distilled water. Other cases of ice-spike growth show similar growth-rate behaviour. The growth rate is plotted against elapsed time since the moment when distinct ice-spike growth was first observed. The diameter of the ice spike was not constant throughout its growth. The ice spike stopped growing after approximately 260 s. The data points are connected by a smooth curve to guide the reader’s eye. The experimental error in the growth-rate measurements is about ±0.00001 ms-1.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Ice-spike growth rate as a function of ice-spike diameter for three cases combined. The ordinate is the growth rate in length (axially) while the abscissa is the diameter at the tip of the orifice. The error bars are estimates based on errors in the image analysis procedures. The two smooth curves are the theoretical growth rate calculated by combining Equations (2) and (3), where D is the thickness of the growing ice shell. D values of 0.0025 m and 0.0037 m are estimates, based on Equation (3), of the shell thickness after 30 and 45 min respectively. Distinct ice-spike growth was first observed between 30-45 min after the ice-cube tray was placed in the freezer, in all three cases.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Cooling rate at the center of the Lexan container as a function of temperature at the same location. The cooling rate was determined by finite differencing the 1min average thermocouple temperatures. The data points are 1 min apart. Negative values imply heat loss from the water or ice. Time proceeds from right to left along the abscissa, as the system cools. A smooth curve has been added to guide the reader’s eye. The experimental error in the cooling rate is about ±5%.