2. Numerical method and set-up

We numerically integrate the velocity field $\boldsymbol {u}$ and the temperature field $\theta$ according to the Navier–Stokes equations, neglecting the effect of buoyancy induced by temperature differences. The melting process is modelled by the phase-field method, which has been widely used in previous studies (Favier et al. Reference Favier, Purseed and Duchemin2019; Couston et al. Reference Couston, Hester, Favier, Taylor, Holland and Jenkins2021; Hester et al. Reference Hester, McConnochie, Cenedese, Couston and Vasil2021; Yang et al. Reference Yang, Chong, Liu, Verzicco and Lohse2022, Reference Yang, Howland, Liu, Verzicco and Lohse2023b). In this technique, the phase-field variable $\phi$ is integrated in time and space and smoothly transitions from a value of $1$ in the solid to a value of $0$ in the liquid. The equations are non-dimensionalized by inflow speed $U_0$ as the velocity scale, ice effective diameter $D$ as the length scale, and the temperature difference between the ambient flow and the ice $T_0$ as the temperature scale. The non-dimensionalized quantities include three velocity components $u_i$ with $i=1,2,3$, the pressure $p$, the temperature $\theta$ and the phase-field scalar $\phi$. The dimensionless governing equations read

(2.1)$$\begin{gather} \boldsymbol{\nabla} \boldsymbol{\cdot} \boldsymbol{u}=0, \end{gather}$$

(2.2)$$\begin{gather}\partial_t \boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{\nabla} \boldsymbol{\cdot} (\boldsymbol{u} \boldsymbol{u})={-}\boldsymbol{\nabla} p+\frac{1}{Re}\nabla^2 \boldsymbol{u}, \end{gather}$$

(2.3)$$\begin{gather}\partial_t \theta+\boldsymbol{\nabla} \boldsymbol{\cdot} (\boldsymbol{u} \theta)=\frac{1}{{RePr}} \nabla^2 \theta+S t \partial_t \phi, \end{gather}$$

(2.4)$$\begin{gather}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=\frac{6}{5 S t C {{RePr}}}\left[\nabla^2 \phi-\frac{1}{\beta^2} \phi(1-\phi)(1-2 \phi+C \theta)\right], \end{gather}$$

where $\beta$ is the diffusive interface thickness, which is typically set to be the mean grid spacing. The control parameters of the system are the Reynolds number $Re$, which is the dimensionless flow strength, the Prandtl number $Pr$, which is the ratio between kinematic viscosity $\nu$ and thermal diffusivity $\kappa$, and the Stefan number $St$, which is the ratio between latent heat and sensible heat, and the aspect ratio of the initial ice shape $\gamma$, which is defined as the ratio of its width and length and will be the focus of this paper:

(2.5a–d)\begin{equation} Re=\frac{U_0D}{\nu},\quad Pr=\frac{\nu}{\kappa},\quad St=\frac{\mathcal{L}}{c_p\varDelta T},\quad \gamma=\frac{l_w}{l_l}. \end{equation}

Here, $U_0$ is the inflow velocity, $l_w$ and $l_l$ are the initial width and length of the ice shape (shown in figure 1b), $\mathcal {L}$ is the latent heat, $c_p$ is the specific heat capacity, $\varDelta T=T_0-T_i$ is the temperature difference between inflow temperature $T_0$ and the initial ice temperature $T_i$. Due to the large parameter space, some of the control parameters have to be fixed in order to make the study feasible. For the time being, we fix $Pr=7$ and $St=4$ as the values for water at $20\,^\circ {\rm C}$, unless specified otherwise, and $T_i=0\,^\circ {\rm C}$, the same as the melting temperature. Varying $T_i$ presumably also affects the melting process as the temperature conduction inside the solid also plays a role, which is worth further exploration. Later we also investigate the effect of $Pr$ and $St$ independently. Our simulations cover a parameter range of $0\le Re\le 10^3$ ($Re=10^3$ corresponds to flow speed $U=5\ {\rm cm}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$ and ice diameter $D=2$ cm) and $0.1 \le \gamma \le 2.25$. Here $C$ is the phase mobility parameters related to the Gibbs–Thompson relation. We choose $C = 1$, which may overestimate the Gibbs-Thomson effect for high curvature. Therefore we avoid too extreme values of $\gamma$, where the high curvature regions might be inaccurate. We further impose a direct forcing of the velocity to zero for $\phi >0.9$, preventing spurious motions inside the solid phase (Howland Reference Howland2022). More details can be found in previous studies (Hester et al. Reference Hester, Couston, Favier, Burns and Vasil2020; Yang et al. Reference Yang, Howland, Liu, Verzicco and Lohse2023b). Simulations are performed using the second-order staggered finite difference code AFiD, which has been extensively validated and used to study a wide range of turbulent flow problems (Ostilla-Mónico et al. Reference Ostilla-Mónico, Yang, Van Der Poel, Lohse and Verzicco2015; Yang, Verzicco & Lohse Reference Yang, Verzicco and Lohse2016; Liu et al. Reference Liu, Chong, Yang, Verzicco and Lohse2022), including phase-change problems (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Chong, Liu, Verzicco and Lohse2022, Reference Yang, Howland, Liu, Verzicco and Lohse2023b). The phase-field method is applied to model the phase-change process, which has been widely used in previous studies (Favier et al. Reference Favier, Purseed and Duchemin2019; Couston et al. Reference Couston, Hester, Favier, Taylor, Holland and Jenkins2021; Hester et al. Reference Hester, McConnochie, Cenedese, Couston and Vasil2021; Ravichandran & Wettlaufer Reference Ravichandran and Wettlaufer2021; Yang et al. Reference Yang, Howland, Liu, Verzicco and Lohse2023b).

Figure 1.

(a) An illustration of the set-up for ice melting in flowing water. The inflow is set at the left boundary with unidirectional velocity $U_0$ and uniform temperature $T_0$. (b) Zoomed-in view of the ice object. Here $l_w$ and $l_l$ represent the width and the length of the object, respectively. Panels (c–f) represent the snapshots of the temperature field of ice melting in flowing water with different aspect ratios $\gamma$, namely (c) $\gamma =0.25$, (d) $0.44$, (e) $1$ and (f) $2.25$. The corresponding movies are shown as supplementary movies and are available at https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2023.1080. Panels (g–j) show the snapshots of $\partial \phi /\partial t$ (see text for more details), corresponding to the cases in (c–f). The colour represents the local melt rate over the surface at different times. Also, the corresponding plot of the shift distance $\tilde {D}_x$ (normalized by corresponding $l_l$) of the centroids as a function of the dimensionless time is given. The mass loss rate $\dot {m}$, normalized $\partial \phi /\partial t$, is colour-coded.

The flow is confined vertically by two parallel boundaries with free-slip boundary conditions for the velocity and adiabatic for the temperature (see figure 1a). In the simulations, we prescribe an ice object with area $A_0$ and effective diameter $D=2\sqrt {A_0/{\rm \pi} }$ in a domain of length $L=20D$ and width $W_z=5D$. Both two-dimensional (2-D) ($L/W_z=4$) and three-dimensional (3-D) simulations ($L/W_z=L/W_x=4$) are conducted. The long and short axis lengths of the ellipse are $l_l=D/\sqrt {\gamma }$ and $l_w=D\sqrt {\gamma }$, respectively. Note that the finite cross-stream dimension of the computation domain could in principle lead to blockage effects. To ensure that this does not affect our results, we performed a test for circle shapes at $Re=400$ with different $W_z$, which produced a convergent melt rate at $W_z=5D$. Initially, the simulations are run with the ice object fixed at zero velocity and $\theta _i=0$, and the melting process is turned off until the flow reaches the fully developed stage, then we turn on the melting process. The velocity and temperature at the left and right boundary are set as uniform $U_0$ and $T_0$ by a penalty force. The initial temperature of the ice is set as the melting temperature $\theta _i=0$, and the ambient fluid is set as the inflow temperature $\theta =1$. The position of the ice front is described as isocontour $\phi =1/2$ as time evolves. Grid convergence tests are shown in figure 2.

Figure 2.

Resolution convergence test. (a) The normalized area as a function of dimensionless time for different resolutions at $Re=400$. (b) The contour plots of the ice surface at $t=8t_0$ (grey dashed line in (a)). (c) Calculated $t_f$ as a function of the grid resolution. The dashed line shows the value of $t_f$ for the highest resolution we run. Based on this, our final choice of the resolution N of the cross-section length for $Re=400$ is $N=576$. (d) The relative convergence test. The $y$-axis is the relative error $|t_f-t_{f_0}|/t_{f_0}$ where $t_{f_0}$ is the $t_f$ for the highest resolution. The dashed lines represent the linear and quadratic relations.

3. Shape evolution and melt-rate dependence on parameters

We first investigate the evolution of ice shapes, which depends on the initial shape and the flow rate. Temperature fields under different initial shapes for a fixed area are shown in figure 1(c–f) ($\gamma$ increases from (c) to (f)). From the temperature field, one can see the complex interaction between melting and detaching wake vortices. The ice has distinct front and back shapes – ice at the back is more deformed than at the front, due to the detaching vortices in the wake flow, which induce reduced and non-uniform heat flux.

To study the local melt rate at the ice front, we further plot $\partial \phi /\partial t$ in figure 1(g–j), whose value is zero in the solid and liquid phases. At the solid–liquid interface, its value provides insight into the local melt rate. It reveals that two parts of the ice melt faster (in reddish colour): the front due to inflow, and the back due to wake flow. This melting characteristic is similar to that of dissolution (Ristroph et al. Reference Ristroph, Moore, Childress, Shelley and Zhang2012; Huang et al. Reference Huang, Moore and Ristroph2015) and to what was formed in previous experiments on melting spheres (Hao & Tao Reference Hao and Tao2002), where the front tends to melt faster than the back. This occurs because the liquid at the back of the solid is cooler than at the front due to mixing induced by the wake. We investigate the front-to-back asymmetry in the melting by plotting the distance of the ice centroid from its initial position over time in figure 1(g–j). For small $\gamma$, we observe a significant shift of the centroid to the back, while for large $\gamma$, the larger cross-section results in stronger detaching flow, which enhances melting at the back and thus prevents a significant movement of the centroid (see figure 1f). As melting progresses, the front of the shape remains rounded, and different back shapes are obtained for different $\gamma$. These shapes can be attributed to the presence of the detaching vortices, whose shedding occurs in an oscillating manner at the top and bottom of the body. As a result, melting is favoured at the top and bottom, creating a wedge-like shape. It is also interesting to note that earlier works emphasized that the front shape of eroding/dissolving bodies converges to a terminal form (Ristroph et al. Reference Ristroph, Moore, Childress, Shelley and Zhang2012; Huang et al. Reference Huang, Moore and Ristroph2015). Here we observed that slender bodies are blunted and blunt bodies are made slender. The front shapes of different bodies become similar as they melt, but they completely melt before the stage where they may converge to a terminal form.

The complicated ice–water interaction affects not only the melting shape but also the melt rate. Figure 3(a) shows the normalized total area change over time for different aspect ratio $\gamma$. For increasing $\gamma$, the melt curves exhibit a non-monotonic trend, with the melt rate first decreasing and then increasing. We measure the time taken for the ice to completely melt as $t_f$, and take $\bar{f}=1/t_f$ to be the mean melt rate. Figure 3(b) shows the normalized melt rate $\bar{f}/f_0$ as a function of $\gamma$ for different $Re$, where $f_0(Re)$ is the mean melt rate for the circles ($\gamma =1$). Here, the same trend is observed, and $\bar {f}$ depends not only on $\gamma$ but also on $Re$. In the absence of flow ($Re=0$), the minimum melt rate occurs at the optimal aspect ratio $\gamma _{min}=1$ for a circle shape. As $Re$ increases, $\gamma _{min}$ decreases until it converges to approximately $\gamma _{min}\approx 0.5$. The same trend is also observed for 3-D simulations of a cylinder with the cross-section of different aspect ratios.

Figure 3.

(a) The area $A$ normalized $A_0$ as function of time normalized by $t_0=D/U_0$ for different $\gamma$ and fixed $Re=10^3$, $Pr=7$ and $St=4$. (b) Overall melt rate $\bar {f}/f_0$ (from initial to complete melt), normalized by the overall melt rate $f_0$ at $\gamma =1$, as a function of $\gamma$ for different $Re$. The inset image shows the snapshots of temperature fields for 3-D simulation results ($Re=10^3$). The dashed line is the theoretical curve from (4.6), which is expected to hold for larger $Re$.

Our findings demonstrate that ice with an elliptical shape (when the long axis is aligned with the flow direction) can melt up to 10 % slower than a circle shape when exposed to flowing water. This previously neglected shape factor may have implications for accurately estimating the melt rate of icebergs in previous models that neglected it (Weeks & Campbell Reference Weeks and Campbell1973; Martin & Adcroft Reference Martin and Adcroft2010; FitzMaurice et al. Reference FitzMaurice, Cenedese and Straneo2017). The non-intuitive nature of this phenomenon raises a further question about its physical mechanism.

4. Theoretical model for the melt rate

To quantitatively explain the result, we follow the same approach as used by Ristroph et al. (Reference Ristroph, Moore, Childress, Shelley and Zhang2012) and Huang et al. (Reference Huang, Moore and Ristroph2015) for eroding or dissolving bodies and consider the total ice mass budget for the melting process:

(4.1)\begin{equation} \frac{{\rm d} A(t)}{{\rm d} t}=P(\gamma,t)v_n,\end{equation}

where $P(\gamma,t)$ is the perimeter of the ice (for 2-D), and $v_n(t)$ is the surface-averaged melt speed. Assuming the elliptical shape is not significantly changing with time (i.e. $\gamma (t)\approx \gamma (t=0)=\gamma$), we have the expression for the ellipse perimeter from the elliptic integral:

(4.2)\begin{equation} P(\gamma,t)=2\sqrt{\frac{A(t)}{{\rm \pi}\gamma}}\int^{2{\rm \pi}}_0\sqrt{1-(1-\gamma^2) \sin^2\alpha}\, {\rm d} \alpha,\end{equation}

where $\alpha$ is the angle. Here $v_n(t)$ would be uniform everywhere in the absence of flow. The presence of a flow around the body increases the temperature gradient at the ice front which enhances the heat transfer and also makes $v_n(t)$ non-uniform as $v_n(\alpha,t)$. The flow creates a viscous boundary layer and a thermal boundary layer, respectively of thicknesses $\delta _\nu$ and $\delta _\theta$. The width ratio of the boundary layers is given by the Prandtl number; $Pr=\nu /\kappa =7$ in our case implies $\delta _v>\delta _\theta$, as illustrated in figure 4(a,b). In order to understand the coupling between the shape of the object and the flow around it, we consider the Stefan boundary condition, i.e. the (dimensionless) surface-averaged melt speed $\tilde {v}_n$ is related to the surface-averaged heat flux $\overline {Nu}$:

(4.3)\begin{equation} \tilde{v}_n=\frac{v_n}{U_0}={-}\frac{1}{U_0}\frac{\kappa c_p}{\mathcal{L}} \frac{\partial T}{\partial n}=\frac{\overline{Nu}}{StPrReA^{1/2}},\end{equation}

where we can use the relation from the well-known scaling of thermal boundary-layer thickness (Meksyn Reference Meksyn1961; Grossmann & Lohse Reference Grossmann and Lohse2004) for the laminar boundary layer:

(4.4)\begin{equation} \overline{Nu}\sim\delta_\theta^{{-}1}\sim Re_{l_w}^{1/2}Pr^{1/3}/C(Pr),\end{equation}

with $Re_{l_w}=l_w U/\nu$ the Reynolds number defined by the cross-section length $l_w=2\sqrt {\gamma A/{\rm \pi} }$, $C(Pr)$ is an infinite alternating series given in Meksyn (Reference Meksyn1961). In the limit of large $Pr$, the series for $C(Pr)$ will converge to $C(Pr) = 1$. By substituting equations (4.2) and (4.3) into (4.1), we obtain an ordinary differential equation which is easily solved, with the result

(4.5)$$\begin{gather} A(t)=A_0\left(1-\frac{t}{t_f}\right)^{{4}/{3}}, \end{gather}$$

(4.6)$$\begin{gather}\ t_f^{{-}1}\sim P(\gamma)\gamma^{1/4}\frac{Pr^{{-}2/3}}{C(Pr)}St^{{-}1}. \end{gather}$$

The $4/3$ scaling of (4.5) is identical to that derived by Ristroph et al. (Reference Ristroph, Moore, Childress, Shelley and Zhang2012) and Moore et al. (Reference Moore, Ristroph, Childress, Zhang and Shelley2013) for eroding bodies, and the time to fully melt (4.6) is similar to the expression obtained by Huang et al. (Reference Huang, Moore and Ristroph2015) in the case of dissolution, though there Prandtl/Schmidt number is more than two orders of magnitude larger. The additional novelty of (4.6) is in the dependence on the aspect ratio $\gamma$, which arises from including such dependence in the Reynolds number used in (4.4). This dependence is the focus of this work.

Figure 4.

(a). A schematic of the flow and temperature fields for different $\gamma$. The steady outer flow consists of warm water, while the attached flow near the body forms a boundary layer (dashed line) containing the melted fluid. It also shows that the separation point of flow moves downstream as $\gamma$ decreases. (b) Zoomed-in view of the velocity and temperature boundary layers, the former defined by the velocity and the latter by the temperature gradient. (c) The theoretical curve from (4.6), including $P(\gamma )$, $\epsilon ^{1/4}$ and $P(\gamma )\gamma ^{1/4}$ as a function of $\gamma$. Here, $Pr=7$, $St=4$.

From (4.6) the overall melt rate $\bar {f}$ depends on $\gamma$ as $\bar {f}=t_f^{-1}\sim P(\gamma )\gamma ^{1/4}$, where $\gamma ^{1/4}$ originates from the scaling of $\overline {Nu}$, representing the advective flow-induced melt, and $P(\gamma )$ represents the surface contact-induced melt. The contributions of $P(\gamma )$ and $\gamma ^{1/4}$ are both presented in figure 4(b), with $P(\gamma )$ exhibiting a symmetric curve as a function of $\gamma$ with a minimum at $\gamma =1$, which represents melting without flow. In contrast, $\gamma ^{1/4}$ displays a monotonic increase in melt rate, indicating that ambient flow enhances melt rate. The overall melt rate $\bar {f}\sim P(\gamma )\gamma ^{1/4}$ has a non-monotonic trend with $\gamma$, with a minimum at $\gamma _{{min,theory}}=0.48$ (which is essentially the same as the value $\gamma _{{min,sim}} \simeq 0.5$ observed by our numerical simulations). Figure 3(b) shows the total melt-rate curve, which agrees well with the numerical results obtained at high $Re$ in our numerical results. For relatively low $Re$ and even $Re=0$, the advective flow is weak, meaning $\overline {Nu}$ is close to $1$, instead of satisfying the boundary-layer relation (4.4).

In summary, the non-monotonic relation and shift of the minimum melt-rate point are physically explained by the combined contributions from the melt driven by surface contact and the melt driven by the advective flow. The former is related to the surface area, with the minimum at $\gamma =1$, while the latter is driven by the ambient flow, leading to a monotonic increase in melt rate with increasing $\gamma$. We confirmed that the assumption of a fixed shape as the ice melts is valid by comparing the measured and calculated perimeters from (4.2) in figure 5(a). The ratio remains close to $1$, except for large $\gamma$, which is attributed to the strong wake flow (see figure 1f). The deviation of the assumption at large $\gamma$ also explains the deviation in figure 3(b) at large $\gamma$.

Figure 5.

(a) The ratio between the measured perimeter from simulations and the ideal elliptical perimeter from (4.2) for varying $\gamma$ at $Re=400$. The ratio close to $1$ means that our assumption is valid. (b) The normalized area $A/A_0$ as a function $1-t/t_f$ for varying $\gamma$ at $Re=400$. All curves follow the $4/3$ scaling as theoretically derived in (4.5). (c) The compensated plot of the normalized area $A/A_0(1-t/t_f)^{-4/3}$ as a function $1-t/t_f$ for varying $\gamma$ at $Re=400$. (d) The melt rate as a function of $St$ for fixed $\gamma =1$. The dashed grey line represents $\bar {f}\sim St^{-1}$. (e) The melt rate as a function of $Pr$ for fixed $\gamma =1$. The dashed grey line represents $\bar {f}\sim Pr^{-2/3}/C(Pr)$.

5. Melt rate scalings – comparison of theory and numerical result

In order to test the scaling law $A(t)\sim (1-t/t_f)^{4/3}$ derived in the previous section, we conducted simulations with varying $\gamma$ and fixed $Re=10^3$, $Pr=7$ and $St=4$. The evolution of the area of the object is depicted in figure 5(b), along with the scaling law given by (4.5). The trends from simulations for different $\gamma$ all follow the $4/3$ scaling, in agreement with the theoretical result. Our findings demonstrate that regardless of the different physical mechanisms causing the body to ablate, whether it be through erosion (Ristroph et al. Reference Ristroph, Moore, Childress, Shelley and Zhang2012), dissolution (Huang et al. Reference Huang, Moore and Ristroph2015) or melting, the scaling laws associated with the vanishing of the body are analogous.

Besides the dependence of the melt rate on $\gamma$, we can also obtain the scaling dependence of the melt rate on $Pr$ and $St$ from (4.6). To validate this scaling law, we performed simulations with varying $St$ in figure 5(c) while keeping $\gamma$ fixed at $1$ and $Pr$ fixed at $7$. At large $St$ (relevant for icebergs melting in cold water), the melt rate from simulation results follows $\bar {f}\sim St^{-1}$, which is consistent with the scaling law from (4.6). At small $St$, the scaling deviates from $St^{-1}$. It could be because ice melts so fast that the melted fluid is still surrounding the ice, regardless of the ambient flow. This trend has also been observed in the study of melting in convection (Favier et al. Reference Favier, Purseed and Duchemin2019). Another possible reason is that as the solid melts and the size decreases, the curvature term affects the surface melt temperature, which can cause heat diffusion inside the solid and affect the heat flux, thus the departure from the $St^{-1}$ scaling. It has a more obvious effect for low $St$ because the melt is so fast that the size of the solid quickly decreases. However, in most of our simulations and most of realistic cases, e.g. ice melting, we have $St>1$, where $St^{-1}$ scaling agrees well. We also conducted simulations with varying $Pr$ in figure 5(c) while keeping $\gamma$ fixed as $1$ and $St$ fixed as $4$. The simulation results follow $\bar {f}\sim Pr^{-2/3}/C(Pr)$ from (4.6), implying a simplified scaling $\bar {f}\sim Pr^{-2/3}$ for large $Pr$, which agrees with our results. In brief, our simulation results for varying $St$ and $Pr$ both show good agreement with the scaling law derived in (4.6).