Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T21:56:52.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ice formation within a thin film flowing over a flat plate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

Madeleine Rose Moore*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK
M. S. Mughal
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
D. T. Papageorgiou
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: moorem@maths.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

We present a model for ice formation in a thin, viscous liquid film driven by a Blasius boundary layer after heating is switched off along part of the flat plate. The flow is assumed to initially be in the Nelson et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 284, 1995, pp. 159–169) steady-state configuration with a constant flux of liquid supplied at the tip of the plate, so that the film thickness grows like $x^{1/4}$ in distance along the plate. Plate cooling is applied downstream of a point, $Lx_{0}$, an $O(L)$-distance from the tip of the plate, where $L$ is much larger than the film thickness. The cooling is assumed to be slow enough that the flow is quasi-steady. We present a thorough asymptotic derivation of the governing equations from the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations in each fluid and the corresponding Stefan problem for ice growth. The problem breaks down into two temporal regimes corresponding to the relative size of the temperature difference across the ice, which are analysed in detail asymptotically and numerically. In each regime, two distinct spatial regions arise, an outer region of the length scale of the plate, and an inner region close to $x_{0}$ in which the film and air are driven over the growing ice layer. Moreover, in the early time regime, there is an additional intermediate region in which the air–water interface propagates a slope discontinuity downstream due to the sudden onset of the ice at the switch-off point. For each regime, we present ice profiles and growth rates, and show that for large times, the film is predicted to rupture in the outer region when the slope discontinuity becomes sufficiently enhanced.

Information

Type
Papers
Copyright
© 2017 Cambridge University Press 
Figure 0

Figure 1. Problem configuration after switch-off: an ice layer forms on the plate for $x^{\ast }>Lx_{0}$. The air Reynolds number is defined by $Re=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{a}LU_{\infty }/\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{a}$, where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{a}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{a}$ are the density and viscosity of air respectively.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Asymptotic structure of the switch-off problem for $T=O(1)$ as described in the text: the outer regions Ia–c, the intermediate regions IIa–c and the inner regions IIIa–c, where a, b, c correspond to the air, film and ice respectively.

Figure 2

Figure 3. (a) The film temperature on the air–water interface in the inner region and the outer solution asymptote (red crosses) for the parameters given in the text. (b) The ice surface profile in the inner region and its asymptote according to the outer solution (red crosses) for the parameters given in the text.

Figure 3

Figure 4. The film thickness at various times for: (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=1/7$; (b) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=1/2$; (c) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=1$.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Plot of the time (a) and location (b) of rupture of the liquid film as a function of the ice heat flux strength, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$.

Figure 5

Table 1. Example values of some of the key parameters in the model, taken from a high-speed aerodynamic flow in which the free-stream temperature is lower than but close to the freezing temperature. The data for supercooled water are taken from Hare & Sorensen (1987), Holten et al. (2012), Biddle et al. (2013), Hrubý et al. (2014) and Dehaoui, Issenmann & Caupin (2015).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Numerical solution of (A 5)–(A 8). This contour plot depicts the difference between the full solution and the Lighthill approximation. Clearly, this difference is very small, suggesting that the approximation is valid.