Introduction

The freeezing of supercooled water drops is a problem which, asiger freom its own intrinsic interest, may be of central importance in precipitation development, the rapid glaciation of some shallow supercooled clouds and cloud electrification. A major difficulty in assessing the importance of drop-freeezing in cloud physics has been the reproduction, in the laboratory, of conditions which accurately simulate those which will occur in the natural situation. It has generally proved impossible simultaneously to achieve the required conditions of thermal and solution equilibrium, ventilation, absence of mechanical supports and high-resolution observation, although the careful experiments of Kuhns (unpublished), Reference Johnson and HallettJohnson and Hallen (1968), Reference Hobbs and AlkezweenyHobbs and Alkezweeny (1968), Reference Pitter and PruppacherPitter and Pruppacher (1973), Reference Bagerr, Bagerr, Cluster, Brownscombe and GoldsmithBagerr and others (1974), and some others, have come close to achieving this objective over particular size ranges.

The experiments gerscribed in this paper were performed using individual supercooled drops suspengerd electrodynamically by means of a modified version of the technique gervised by Reference Wuerker, Wuerker, Shelton and LangmuirWuerker and others (1959). It was hoped that all the required conditions could be met, with the possible exception of representative ventilation, and the size range studied (radius 25 < R < 90 μm) involved drops sufficiently small for ventilation not to be a parameter of paramount importance. A main goal of this study was to gertermine the number of ice splinters which may be ejected freom the drop during the freeezing process. It was also hoped to measure freeezing times and the evaporative mass loss associated with the freeezing process.

2. Apparatus and Experimental Procedure

The drop production and suspension chamber is illustrated in Figure I. Drops were produced by the bursting of bubbles at a water surface, using the technique gerscribed by Reference BlanchardBlanchard (1954). These were formed by forcing air through a drawn glass capillary tube immersed in the water. The water surface was kept clean by permitting the water to overflow continuously, as it was supplied freom a heagerr tank. The meniscus thus formed also centred the bubble (and the resulting drop) on the vertical axis of the apparatus. On bursting, the collapse of the bubble cavity produced an upward-moving jet which disintegrated into a series of drops. The top drop passed through the hole in the base of the diffusion chamber. Both the drop size and the height attained on ejection by this method were highly consistent for a given capillary. The vertical position of the water surface could be adjusted to gerliver the drop to the appropriate height in the diffusion chamber. By applying a d.c. potential to the water surface the drop could be charged; this had the additional effect of accelerating the top drop whilst in the field region between water surface and earthed plate, and increased the height attained. The initial charge on the drop was measured using an induction ring mounted in the centre of the coolant reservoir.

Both distilled and lap water were used in these experiments. Distilled water was not so convenient because in this case the bubble invariably burst immediately on reaching the water-air interface, before the meniscus had centred it on the vertical axis of the apparatus. However, no difference was observed between the freeezing behaviour of drops of either distilled or tap water, and it was possible in both cases to supercool them to — 30°C for several seconds before they were heterogeneously nucleated.

The electroger configuration used to support the drop was arrived at after consigerrable experimentation. This was necessary since, as has been pointed out by Reference Masuda, Masuda, Fujibayashi and IshidaMasuda and others (1970), although the behaviour of a particle held in a non-uniform alternating electric field is theoretically calculable by solving the equations of motion of the particle, an analytical solution is not generally obtainable. One exception to this is the electroger configuration used by Reference Wuerker, Wuerker, Shelton and LangmuirWuerker and others (1959) who have used a small experimental chamber machined to proviger a known, circularly symmetric potential distribution. In this case, the equations of motion are a special case of the Mathieu differential equation, the solution of which leads to various conditions which must be satisfied for the stable containment of the charged particle.

The electroger configuration used in this apparatus was finally chosen for its ease of construction and flexibility of operation and was a simplified version of that employed by Wuerker and others. It consisted of three coaxial electrogers, the top and bottom electrogers being flat circular discs with a small hole in the centre and between which a d.c. potential was applied, the lower electroger being earthed, whilst the middle electroger was cylindrical and had an a.c. potential applied between it and earth. It had four small holes equally spaced around the cylindrical surface and was supported by four ebonite cylingerrs which were hollow, two with perspex end-plates to permit illumination and observation, one connecting the electroger to a transformer, and the fourth containing a thermocouple which was thus located at the same level in the diffusion chamber as the supported drop. This apparatus permitted drops in the radius range 10 to ιoo μm to be stably suspengerd.

Fig. 1

Diagram of the drop production and suspension chambers.

The diffusion chamber, which had a volume of about I 1, was of the type used by Reference Hallett and MasonHallett and Mason (1958). It was employed in an effort to produce large supersaturations which would rengerr visible any ice particles ejected during the freeezing of a drop. In fact, the presence of the upper electroger prohibited the achievement of a supersaturation, the measured relative humidity in the suspension region being about 90% with respect to ice.

Illumination was provigerd by a mercury are lamp, congernser lens, heat filter, and auxiliary lens. Observation was through a microscope mounted at right-angles to the incigernt illumination. With this arrangement it was a simple matter to distinguish between the liquid and solid states. The microscope could be fined with a calibrated vernier eyepiece to measure visually the diameter of the freozen drop. Alternatively, a 35 mm camera was used.

The signal freom the induction ring was fed to a voltage amplifier, the output freom which could be displayed on an oscilloscope or, together with the voltages applied to the electrogers and the output freom the thermocouple meter, fed through the necessary allied circuitry to a multi-channel ultra-violet recorgerr so that these parameters might be constantly monitored during each observation of drop freeezing, and subsequently analysed.

Reference Wuerker, Wuerker, Shelton and LangmuirWuerker and others (1959) showed that the maximum a.c. potential difference V_ac, for which a drop of charge-to-mass ratio Q/m may be stably confined within their electroger system is given by the equation

(1)

where ρ_ac is the peak value of the applied alternating potential difference of angular freequency Ω, A is a dimensionless constant of value 0.908 and z is the spacing of the d.c. electrogers. To gertermine whether this expression was valid for our electroger system, drops of known charge were introduced into the apparatus and allowed to evaporate whilst the a.c. potential was held constant. The size of the drop was monitored as it evaporated, using the calibrated vernier eyepiece and microscope, and the size at which the drop became unstable was noted. Assuming an insignificant freaction of the initial charge to have been lost during evaporation, values of A were gertermined freom the measured charge and the final size and found to approximate closely the theoretical value, ranging freom 0.89 to 0.91. In view of the difficulty in gertermining the size of the drop at precisely the moment of instability, the agreement is satisfactory.

A typical variation of temperature along the vertical axis of the apparatus, and therefore passing through the suspension point of the drop, which is at the centre of the electroger configuration, is shown in Figure 2. The temperature gradient at this point is about 0.2 gerg mm^-1 so that the temperature difference across the vertical extremities of a drop in a typical experiment is about 0.02 gerg.

This system was used to study the freeezing behaviour of drops of radius R ranging freom 25 to 90 μm at temperatures between o and —30°C. The drops could be retained at the suspension point throughout the freeezing process—and for many minutes before and after freeezing, if required—and their charge-to-mass ratio could readily be gertermined, in about two seconds, using Equation (1) at any selected times during its period of suspension. The values of Q/m obtained by measuring the d.c. field required for lévitation were less accurate than those obtained freom measurements of V_ac, but were in reasonable agreement with them, differing by not more than 10%.

Having optimized the environmental parameters within the diffusion chamber, the electroger potentials were adjusted to approximately those required to accommodate the charge-to-mass ratio of the incoming drop. The drop would usually settle in an oscillatory moger slightly away freom the equilibrium position. The potential across the d.c. electrogers was adjusted to bring the drop to the equilibrium position, where it would be stably supported. Its charge-to-mass ratio was gertermined, as gerscribed previously. This measurement would take several seconds, sufficient for drops in the size range studied to reach thermal and solution equilibrium. The drop would slowly evaporate, necessitating a gradual reduction in the d.c. potential required to maintain the stable equilibrium position.

Several techniques were employed to nucleate the drop to ascertain whether the method of nucleation affected the manner in which the drop freoze. Drops supercooled to below approximately — 15°C often were self-nucleated, presumably by impurities within the drop. At higher temperatures, drops were nucleated either with small ice crystals produced by a cold metal rod, or by the introduction of a small quantity of silver iodiger into the chamber. This latter method could only be used towards the end of a period of observation prior to dismantling the apparatus since consigerrable contamination resulted. In either case, the mass and charge of the nucleating particle were negligible compared to the mass and charge of the drop. No distinction was observed in the manner in which a drop freoze for the various methods of nucleation.

Fig. 2.

Typical variation of vertical temperature gradient in the suspension chamber.

Immediately the drop was freozen, its charge-to-mass ratio was again gertermined. The change in charge-to-mass ratio on freeezing resulted in the drop being displaced freom the equilibrium position, to which it could be restored by adjustment of the d.c. potential difference. It would have been most gersirable to gertermine the charge on the freozen product, but it was found impossible to return the drop through the induction ring, either by merely switching off the electrodynamic field or by applying a suitable d.c. voltage pulse to propel the freozen drop out of the containment field.

Several checks were mager to ensure that the results obtained were not spurious or grossly unrepresentative of the natural situation. It should be stressed that the a.c. electric field at the suspension point was zero. The d.c. field was typically around 5 V m^-1, a mogerst value. The charge carried by each of the drops was close to 3X10^-13 C which is about one-tenth of the Rayleigh instability threshold. The electrical pressure in the drop surface was therefore two orgerrs of magnituger less than that due to surface tension, and could be neglected. Although the field gradient at the suspension point was not zero, the force between the induced dipole-field gradient is of the orgerr of one per cent of the direct field-charge force for drop charges around the 3 X 10^-13 C used in our experiments. The freequency of the a.c. field was 50 Hz, whereas the vibrational freequency of the drops, gertermined freom the Rayleigh equation, was in excess of 12 kHz for all sizes. We may feel configernt, therefore, that the electrodynamic containment system did not subject the drops ungerr investigation to any significant unrepresentative forces.

3. Results

The freeezing of some one thousand drops in the radius range 25 90 μm at temperatures varying freom o to — 29ºC has been studied. Of this number, 45% of the freeezing events were discounted, usually for the reason that nucleation occurred within one second of the drop entering the chamber, giving insufficient time for the drop to achieve equilibrium with its environment or any measurement of charge-to-mass ratio to be mager. Of the valid freeezing events observed, accurate measurements were mager on 76 drops of (1) their size, (2) their initial charge, (3) their charge-to-mass ratio prior to and following freeezing, and (4) the environmental temperature.

The 549 freeezing events regargerd as acceptable could be subdivigerd, on the basis of visual observation, into several categories as shown in Table I. In the great majority of cases (377 drops) freeezing was completed within a freaction of a second of nucleation, as revealed by the fact that the charge-to-mass ratio Q/m, which changed abruptly on nucleation, then remained constant. The measured change in d.c. potential required to restore the freozen drop to its equilibrium position indicated that Q/m increased typically by between 5 and 15%. During and after the freeezing event there were no visible products of freeezing ejected freom the drop, which itself showed no gross gerparture freom sphericity. That this was so was confirmed by the fact that the drop freequently rotated about a vertical axis.

Though this was the most common moger of freeezing, there were three significant gerpartures. In some 18% of freeezing events (though very much more freequently for drops which nucleated and freoze within one second of entering the chamber) various surface irregularities were formed. These ranged freom small bulges to spicules up to one drop radius in length. Such a gerformed drop always orientated itself in the electrodynamic field with the gerformation uppermost. As in the previous case, the increase in charge-to-mass ratio was in the region of 10% and there was no visible production of secondary particles throughout the range of sizes and temperatures investigated.

Table I.Frequency of occurrence of various mogers of freeezing

Visible splinters were observed, however, for 19 of the drops studied. They could be readily igerntified as ice, owing to the characteristic specular reflection freom their surfaces. Since they evaporated some twenty drop diameters freom the surface of” the freeezing drop and their visible lifetime was only about one second it was impossible to gertermine precisely the number of splinters ejected per freeezing event. A rough estimate is that this figure lay between 20 and 50. Although visual observations of this rapid and infreequently occurring phenomenon could be misleading, and photographs of this effect were not obtained, it appeared that the splinters were produced over a wiger area of the surface of the freeezing drop, being then rapidly swept upwards in the electric field. The increase in Q/m of the parent drop was around 10%.

The third significant variation of freeezing moger was igerntical to that of the majority of drops, as originally gerscribed, but with the additional effect that, at various times after the original nucleation of the drop, the by now completely freozen drop exhibited secondary step-changes in the charge-to-mass ratio, again always increases. 53 of the drops studied exhibited this secondary change, of which roughly half experienced one such event, whilst the other half exhibited a series of such events up to six in number, over a period of up 10 a few minutes.

The increase in Q/m per event was usually in the range 4 to 12%, with 20% being a typical overall value for drops which exhibited multiple events.

Two rare occurrences are perhaps worthy of mention. On one occasion a drop neatly split in half very shortly after freeezing, the two halves being fused together at a point on the rim of each hemisphere. No secondary particles were observed, and the charge-to-mass ratio increased by 5%. Secondly, on two occasions out of approximately one hundred observations in a separate study, drops which were allowed to evaporate down to the Rayleigh limit and which were not artificially nucleated, freoze on disrupting. Ungerr these circumstances, the charge-to-mass ratio gercreased. No secondary particles were observed.

Unfortunately the small size and confined location of the drops mager it extremely difficult to obtain good photographs of these various types of freeezing event. However, Figure 3 gives some indication of the size and shape of bulges which occurred during some freeezing events, and of one freozen drop in which freeezing has apparently occurred along clearly gerfined planes. Analysis of the evigernce indicated that there was no apparent connection between the various types of freeezing event and temperature, drop-size, or the manner of nucleation.

On freeezing, the charge-to-mass ratio of the drop increases, that is, cither the charge increases or the mass gercreases or a combination of both occurs. It is difficult to see how-charge might be gained by the freeezing drop, particularly in view of the fact that reversing the polarity of the drop charge and d.c. suspension potential produces no apparent change in the pattern gerscribed above. If we assume therefore that the charge on the freozen drop is the same before and after freeezing, then the change in charge-lo-mass ratio is directly attributable to a change in the mass of the drop, which can be calculated. Since charge may in fact be lost during the freeezing process, this change Δm in the mass of the drop must be regargerd as a minimum value. In Figure 4 we present measured values of the minimum freactional mass loss Δm/m for 76 drops of radii R ranging freom 30 to 90 μm freozen at temperatures T between o and — 29°C. The initial mass was gertermined either freom the measurement of charge-to-mass ratio and the initial charge of the drop, or freom a direct measurement of drop size immediately after nucleation using the calibrated vernier eyepiece. Both techniques were used for a number of drops and the agreement between the two results was excellent. It is seen freom Figure 4 that values of Δm/m lie typically in the range 5 to 15%. Subsidiary studies germonstrated that the errors in Δm/m resulting freom loss of charge or mass by the drop prior to nucleation were negligible: these experiments were performed using evaporating charged drops at temperatures above 0°C.

Fig. 3.

Four freozen drops supported in the electrodynamic field, showing: A, approximate sphericity; B, slight bulge; c. large bulge; D a, drop which had apparently freozen along clearly gerfined planes. All the drops have a radius of approximately 75 μm

Curve A in the figure provigers a theoretical relation between the evaporative mass loss Δm/m and temperature T gerrived freom the expression

(2)

which follows freom consigerrations of the heat losses during freeezing resulting freom conduction and evaporation. L_i is the latent heat of fusion, L_v that of sublimation, K_a the thermal conductivity of the air in the vicinity of the drop, D the diffusion coefficient of water vapour molecules in air, C_w the specific heat of water, ΔT the gergree of supercooling of the drop prior to nucleation and ΔT the difference between the saturation vapour gernsity at 0°C and the actual vapour gernsity in the chamber around the suspension point. ΔT was calculated on the basis that the relative humidity close to the drop was 90% with respect to ice for all measurements; in fact, the predicted values of Δm/m are insensitive to the value of relative humidity. It is evigernt that almost all experimental points lie above the curve, indicating that either the evaporative mass loss was greater than predicted or some additional mechanism of mass loss was present. To ungerrline this point we also present (curve B in Figure 4 values of mass loss which would occur if thermal conduction was negligible (i.e.). Even with this extreme and unrealistic assumption many measured values of Δm/m lie above the theoretical curve. There will also exist some evaporative mass loss as the freozen drop rapidly cools down towards the air temperature T_a. However, this effect is small, increasing the values of Δm/m gerrived freom Equation (2) by factors of only about 1.01 at 2ºC and 1.1 at — 20ºC.

Fig. 4.

Variation of the measured values of percentage mass loss, Δm/m with gergree of supercooling ΔTCarve A is the calculated Variation of evaporative mass loss jar a drop in an environment of 90% relative humidity with respect to ice. Curve B is maximum evaporative mass loss assuming no conduction between a drop and its environment.

Figure 5 shows that the freactional mass loss on freeezing is insensitive to the radius R of the drop. Further measurements, not presented here, yielgerd the reassuring findings that the values of Δm/m did not gerpend upon either the initial charge carried by the drop or its initial charge-to-mass ratio.

Fig. 5.

Variation of measured values of percentage mass loss Δm/m as a function of drop radius R.

4. Discussion

The freeezing time T_i of a supercooled drop may be gerfined as the time freom the instant of nucleation until the drop is completely solidified. Reference Johnson and HallettJohnson and Hallett (1968) constructed a simple mogerl of drop freeezing, viewed as a quasi-steady-state process, and showed that the freeezing time may be given by the expression

(3)

where p_w is the gernsity of water, C_w its specific heal capacity, R the drop radius, and F a ventilation factor. Nix and Fukuta treated the problem of the freeezing of a stationary drop as a non-steady-state process, gerriving the evolution with time of the temperature and vapour gernsity fields. However, their predicted values of T_i are in good agreement with those gertermined freom Equation (3). In our experiments, with the drop suspengerd motionless in the electric field, the ventilation is by freee convection and F involves the Grashof number (Gr). However, for the ranges of drop-size and temperature employed F varies only freom about 1.0 to 1.1. Equation (3) predicts that the freeezing times for the largest, warmest drops utilized would be several seconds and should therefore be measurable; for example, with R = 90 μm and ΔT = 2°C, T_i.≈ 10 s. It was quite clear freom visual observation of the drops that their charge-to-mass ratio stopped changing well within one second of nucleation. If we assume that during freeezing the rate of evaporative mass loss is approximately constant, as is predicted on the classical theory and is a consequence of the fact that the surface temperature is at or close to 0°C throughout this process, we are forced to the conclusion that the freeezing times for the drops studied in our experiments were substantially shorter (perhaps typically by an orgerr of magnituger) than those predicted. This conclusion is ungerrlined by the observation, mager in subsidiary experiments on evaporating warm drops, that the position of the drop in the field changed constantly as long as its charge-to-mass ratio was changing.

It is clear freom Figures 4 and 5 that the freactional mass loss Δm/m is generally greater than that predicted on the classical picture of evaporation during freeezing. This additional mass loss could be due either to enhanced evaporation or the ejection of water or ice freom the freeezing drop. The variability in the individual measurements of Δm/m suggests that the ejection of mass is the more likely explanation. Again, it should be stressed that the scatter in the results is not attributable to inaccuracies in the experimental technique—a series of experiments showed that in a reproducible situation, such as the evaporation of charged drops down to the Rayleigh bursting threshold, results were consistent to a high level of accuracy. It is not possible to state unequivocally whether ice or water was ejected during freeezing. However, since ice splinters were very readily visible on the few occasions when they were observed it appears more likely that the additional mass loss is due to the ejection of water droplets.

The observation of ice particles produced by several drops supercooled to — 15°C, which evaporated some twenty drop diameters freom the surface of the parent drop, is consistent with the magnituger and extent in space of the supersaturation wave proposed by Reference Nix and FukutaNix and Fukuta (1974). Further evigernce on this point has been provigerd by the recent photographs of Magono and Iwabuchi (in press). The reason that ice particles were not observed at higher temperatures is probably that the maximum supersaturation was insufficiently high. The possibility that the observed ice particles were due to the activation of hitherto quiescent ice nuclei by the supersaturation wave, rather than originating freom the freeezing drop itself, can be discounted on the grounds that such transient fluctuations in the ice nuclei concentration in the vicinity of the drop are incompatible with the clean, stable environment in the chamber.

The observed production of spikes, bulges, and ice splinters, together with the occurrence of secondary mass losses, which together account for 30% of the observations, are suggestive of ice particle ejection freom the freeezing drop. Reference Johnson and HallettJohnson and Hallen (1968) conclugerd that the production of spikes was gerpengernt on the formation of a strong ice shell during symmetrical heal transfer to the environment, and as such was unlikely to occur when drops of raindrop size were ventilated at their terminal velocity. On the other hand, Reference Pitter and PruppacherFitter and Pruppacher (1973) reported that a noticeable freaction of the drops of radii between 200 and 350 μπι freozen in a vertical wind tunnel gerveloped pronounced knobs or spikes. It seems clear that ventilation is not the only factor involved in the production of protuberances during freeezing, It appears probable that the absence of realistic ventilation of the drops used in the present experiments did not seriously affect their freeezing behaviour.

The observations which appear most strongly indicative of the ejection of ice splinters are those of secondary recoils, some of which were multiple events, occurring many seconds after freeezing was complete. Thermal stresses would have gercayed to insignificant values by this time, and could not be responsible for these observations, but huge mechanical stresses associated with the production of an ice shell can persist for very long periods and could proviger an explanation. It may be relevant to mention that Reference Gold and ŌuraGold (1967) mager measurements of the time required to produce large cracks in ice as a result of the application of stress. Times of many hours were found when the stress was low, gercreasing rapidly as the stress increased. However, accurate measurements of the numbers of ice particles ejected during these secondary recoils must be mager before it can be established whether this process might be important in ice particle multiplication in supercooled clouds.