JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, NO. D21, 4563, doi:10.

1029/2001JD001223, 2002

A new model of spongy icing from first principles

R. Z. Blackmore
Department of Natural Sciences, King’s University College, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

L. Makkonen
Laboratory of Structural Engineering, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland

E. P. Lozowski
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Received 16 August 2001; revised 19 July 2002; accepted 20 July 2002; published 7 November 2002.

[1] A new icing model has been developed to predict the sponginess (liquid fraction) and
growth rate of freshwater ice accretions growing under a surface film of unfrozen water.
This model is developed from first principles and does not require experimental
sponginess data to tune the model parameters. The model identifies icing conditions
that include no accretion, dry accretion, glaze accretion, spongy nonshedding, and
spongy shedding regimes. It is a steady state model for a stationary vertical cylinder
intercepting horizontally directed spray. The model predicts both the accretion mass
growth flux and the accretion sponginess. The model results suggest that spongy
shedding and spongy nonshedding regimes are common under the high liquid flux
conditions typical of freshwater ship icing. Moreover, the unfrozen liquid incorporated
into the spongy ice matrix can substantially increase the ice accretion load over that
which would be predicted purely thermodynamically. Despite differences in the
experimental setup, the model’s performance compares well with two independent
freshwater experimental data sets for icing on horizontal rotating cylinders. The model
performs well in its prediction of both accretion sponginess and growth rate. The
model predicts sponginess with a variation in liquid mass fraction of about 0.2–0.5,
over the range of air temperature of 0
C to
30
C, in agreement with
observations. INDEX TERMS: 3334 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Middle atmosphere
dynamics (0341, 0342); 3337 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Numerical modeling and data
assimilation; 3367 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Theoretical modeling; KEYWORDS: spongy,
spray, icing, model, dendritic growth

Citation: Blackmore, R. Z., L. Makkonen, and E. P. Lozowski, A new model of spongy icing from first principles, J. Geophys. Res.,
107(D21), 4563, doi:10.1029/2001JD001223, 2002.

1. Introduction
[2] Icing occurs extensively in a variety of cold environ-
ments (hail, aircraft icing, marine icing, and transmission
line icing). It requires the presence of a substrate or
collecting surface on which liquid aerosol can first gather
before solidification and ice accretion can proceed. Beyond
these apparent similarities in the icing process, there are also
likely to be similarities in the physics of the icing that are
less apparent. An example of such a similarity is the
phenomenon of spongy ice growth, for which the physics
is still not completely understood [List, 1990; Knight,
1991]. However, once spongy solidification and accretion
have been understood within the context of one area of
icing, that understanding is likely to be of value in other
areas of icing as well [Lozowski and Gates, 1991].
Copyright 2002 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148-0227/02/2001JD001223
[3] Spongy icing is ice growth that occurs in such a way
that it incorporates a portion of the collected spray as liquid
into the accretion. The degree of ice sponginess is typically
specified by the liquid mass fraction, but it may also be
specified by the ice fraction. For a given sample of spongy
ice, the sum of the liquid mass fraction (or sponginess) and
the ice fraction is unity (see equation (21)).
[4] Spray icing in the marine boundary layer occurs on
vessels and offshore structures, as well as structures and
objects along coastlines that are within reach of splashing or
wind-borne sprays. Spongy growth has been observed in
marine accretions [Makkonen, 1987], but salinity is not a
necessary condition for its occurrence. Hail growth and
aircraft icing studies for example were the first to bring to
light the spongy ice growth problem [Fraser et al., 1953].
Subsequent studies of hail growth have laid the foundations
for the current understanding of ice sponginess [Knight,
1968; Lesins, 1983; List, 1963; Morgan and Prodi, 1969;
Roos and Pum, 1974].

AAC 9-1
AAC 9-2 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING

Figure 1. Schematic of the model’s surface structure in cross section showing the layers of ice and
surface liquid. The mixed layer is typically not present except under extreme liquid flux conditions. The
mixed layer will form for films in excess of about 200 mm. The scale is included for illustrative purposes.
It is not intended to be exact.

[5] Even though marine icing conditions are quite differ-
ent from those of other forms of atmospheric icing, it is
likely that the microphysical processes involved in spongy
ice growth are similar. Quite possibly the dendritic growth
that is believed to result in the entrapment of surface liquid
will be found to be similar under marine and nonmarine
conditions.
[6] A clearer understanding of the physics of spray icing
will produce more effective engineering responses to the
spray icing problem. The present work is intended to add to
the understanding of spray icing, and in particular the
phenomenon of spongy ice growth.
[7] In the following section, we describe the structure of a
spongy icing model and its basic assumptions. In the rest of
the paper, the liquid film model, the thermodynamics of the
falling film and the methods used to predict sponginess and
the icing regimes of the model are developed. Next the
model performance is compared to data, and its sensitivity
to air temperature and liquid water content is examined.
Finally, the model’s prediction of an icing regime transition
is explored. A discussion of the findings and conclusions
ends the paper.
2. The Model Structure
[8] The model has been developed to describe the steady
state growth of spray ice on a vertically oriented cylinder.
The environmental conditions are considered to be constant.
This includes the direction of the wind-borne spray that
impinges on the upwind half of the cylinder. The model is
an adaptation of and improvement of the model of Black-
more and Lozowski [1998]. However, it differs from the
latter inasmuch as it is derived from first principles and
avoids empirical tuning. It also differs inasmuch as the
former model considers a long vertical cylinder, while here,
we consider a stubby vertical cylinder whose height and
diameter are equal. We do this for the purpose of comparing
the model results with horizontal rotating cylinder experi-
ments. We will consider the justification for making such a
comparison later. Unlike the model of Blackmore and
Lozowski [1998], the present model does not account for
the detailed feedback between ice growth, liquid film thick-
ness and heat transfer. However, this simplification in the
model allows a consideration of the spongy nonshedding
regime and its transition to spongy shedding, something that
Blackmore and Lozowski [1998] were unable to do.
[9] Blackmore and Lozowski [1996, Figure 2] show the
model’s cylindrical configuration, along with horizontally
impinging spray and a falling film that is confined to the
windward half of the cylinder. By assumption, the falling
film moves vertically downward and the model’s ice accre-
tion forms on the substrate under the falling film, in an
azimuthally uniform fashion on the upwind side of the
cylinder. The collected spray is either shed into the air-
stream from the bottom of the stubby cylinder or accreted
by the advancing matrix of ice and entrapped liquid that
constitutes spongy ice. There is no inflow of liquid at the
top of the cylinder. All of the liquid on the cylinder surface
is a result of spray impinging on the vertical surface of the
cylinder itself. Figure 1 shows the model’s conceptual
surface structure with the ice matrix and falling film. In
actual shedding, the film thickness would vary with height
 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING
on the stubby cylinder, increasing from zero at the top to a
maximum at the bottom. The model simplifies this picture
by considering a film whose thickness is the average of the
thicknesses at the top and bottom of the real cylinder. What
we have depicted here is the vertically averaged film
thickness. The dendritic ice crystal growth occurs as a result
of the supercooling of the liquid in the film. The super-
cooling gives rise to dendritic growth entrapping a portion
of the surface liquid. This results in a spongy ice accretion
growing beneath a falling film of excess surface liquid.
[10] The model has four icing regimes which occur
successively as the air temperature drops [Lesins, 1983]
(1) glaze icing under a slightly supercooled film, (2) spongy
ice growth with surface film shedding, (3) spongy ice
growth without surface film shedding, and (4) ‘‘dry’’ icing
with neither surface liquid nor entrapped liquid.
[11] Blackmore and Lozowski [1998] model the evolu-
tion of latent heat within a dendritic layer lying between
the icing interface and the spongy ice matrix. In the
present model, all of the latent heat of fusion is assumed
to evolve at the icing interface. For this purpose, the icing
interface is defined as the surface separating the spongy
ice matrix and the falling film (see Figure 1). The latent
heat of fusion is conducted away from the icing interface
initially through the laminar sublayer of the falling film. It
is then transported through the outer mixed layer of the
film, if it exists. Convective, evaporative, radiative, and
sensible heat losses, occurring at the outer surface of the
liquid film, finally transfer the heat from the accretion to
the cooler environment. It is this heat loss that determines
the growth rate of crystalline ice at the icing interface.
Under the present assumptions, the modeling of heat
transfer is essentially the same as in a conventional icing
algorithm with a surficial liquid film [Lozowski et al.,
1995].
[12] The film of falling liquid flows vertically downward
adjacent to the icing interface, along the surface of the
horizontally advancing ice matrix. The falling liquid film
model of Dukler and Bergelin [1952] is used to account for
the hydrodynamics of the liquid film. Their model assumes
that a laminar layer forms next to the vertical wall (the icing
interface in our configuration) with buffer and turbulent
layers forming only with sufficiently large film flow. For
our purpose, we assume that this outer composite mixed
layer, if it exists, offers no resistance to heat transfer.
Experience with the model suggests that the film mass flux
is rarely large enough to produce a composite mixed layer
for typical icing conditions. For example, only laminar
falling films were predicted in the model sensitivity studies
and the model comparisons with experimental data that are
presented below. Nevertheless, in order to preserve model
generality, we do allow for the possibility of a mixed layer,
which might occur either with very high spray fluxes for the
stubby cylinder, or with lesser spray fluxes for a cylinder
whose length greatly exceeds its diameter, such as a ship’s
mast.
[13] The model describes steady state ice growth with a
constant impinging spray flux and constant environmental
conditions. For this reason, the ice matrix that is fixed to
the substrate, increases in thickness at a constant rate,
while the adjacent falling film maintains its thickness.
However, the film and the icing interface together, move
AAC 9-3
away from the substrate at the rate of advance of the ice
matrix.
3. The Falling Film Submodel
[14] The Dukler and Bergelin [1952] falling film model is
used to determine the liquid film’s mass flux and thickness
on a vertical surface. The laminar sublayer thickness is
important in determining the conductive heat flux through
the falling film. The vertical mass flux of the film accounts
for the unfrozen surface liquid that is not incorporated into
the advancing ice matrix. The falling film submodel is a
steady discharge model and it does not account for surface
wave propagation, rivulet flow or wind stress effects. There
follows a brief description of the falling film model as
excerpted from the work of Blackmore [1996].
[15] The model’s falling film moves only vertically, and
for simplicity no horizontal component of film velocity is
allowed for in the falling film submodel. This allows no
surficial liquid flow, for example, from the windward side
toward the leeward side of the cylinder, and hence for
simplicity we assume that the model accretion is added
uniformly to the windward side of the cylinder. The spongy
ice mass that is accreted at the icing interface is removed
from the falling film as the liquid in the film flows over the
icing interface. The model neglects the possible circulation
or flow of liquid within the structure of the accreted spongy
ice.
[16] Unlike the model of Blackmore [1996], the present
model uses a ‘‘no icing’’ falling film to approximate the
falling film in actual spray icing. In other words, the present
approach does not allow for an adjustment in the film
thickness to account for the ice and liquid incorporated into
the advancing ice matrix. This simplification makes the
thermodynamic and sponginess modeling easier to tackle
and the model’s performance less difficult to understand.
Under the conditions considered in this paper, the maximum
film thickness, which occurs at the bottom of the cylinder,
ranges up to about 200 mm.
[17] The conservation of water substance for the laminar
layer (Figure 2) is expressed by:
R4 ¼ I0 þ R0 þ Rt ð1Þ
where R4 is the impinging spray flux, I0 represents the
formation rate of pure ice that constitutes the solid portion
of the ice matrix (kg m
2 s
1), R0 is the flux of water
entrapped by the ice matrix, and Rt is the mass flux of liquid
shed from the cylinder in the film flow, given by:
Rt ¼ R2 þ R3 ð2Þ
where R2 is the mass flux shed in the laminar layer, and R3
is the mass flux shed in the mixed layer of the falling film. If
only a laminar layer exists, Rt = R2 then as shown in Figure
2. We note here that we have retained, where feasible, the
notation of Blackmore and Lozowski [1998].
[18] In the model, we take the impinging spray flux, R4,
to be a known environmental input parameter. The thermo-
dynamics of the layers of the falling film, along with the
model’s icing regimes (for details, see section 6) are used to
calculate the total accretion flux, (I0 + R0). Once the total
AAC 9-4 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING
Figure 2. Schematic of the model’s surface structure showing only a laminar layer as a falling film with
the mass fluxes across the boundaries of the various layers. The scale is included for illustrative purposes.
It is not intended to be exact.
accretion flux and the impinging spray flux are known,
equation (1) is used to calculate Rt, the total liquid flux.
Blackmore and Lozowski [1998] have provided the details
of how the layer thicknesses and fluxes in the falling film
(i.e., R2, R3 of equation (2)) are determined.
4. The Thermodynamics of the Falling Film
[19] In the model, we assume that only conductive heat
transfer occurs in the laminar layer of the falling film. The
mixed layer, if it exists, is modeled as offering essentially no
resistance to the heat transfer between the outer surface of
the laminar layer and the environment. Hence the mixed
layer is taken to be isothermal, at the temperature of the
outer surface of the laminar layer. Under these physical
assumptions, the heat balance for the outer surface of the
laminar layer is (cf. Figure 4) [Blackmore and Lozowski,
1998]:
qc þ qa þ qe þ qr þ qs ¼ 0 ð3Þ
where qc, is the conductive heat flux that originates at the
icing interface, which is directed through the laminar layer
into the mixed layer of the film. The other terms are
common in the spray icing literature and are usually present
in conventional icing models [Makkonen, 2000]. They are
qa, the convective heat flux to the airstream, qe, the
evaporative heat flux to the airstream, qr, the net radiative
heat flux to the airstream, and qs, the flux of sensible heat
required to warm the impinging spray collected by the film.
The heat fluxes at the outer surface of the laminar layer are
considered positive if heat flows toward the outer surface
and negative if heat flows away from the outer surface. The
conductive flux, qc, is given by:

T
qc ¼ kw ð4Þ
d
where kw, is the thermal conductivity of water (W m
1
K
1), d, is the thickness of the laminar layer (m), and
T is
the supercooling (considered positive) at the outer surface of
the laminar layer (K). We assume that the icing interface
(see Figure 3) is at the equilibrium freezing temperature
(i.e., 0
C).
[20] Equation (3) is used in the model to calculate the
temperature and supercooling,
T, at the outer surface of
the laminar layer, which is also the temperature of the mixed
layer, if one exists. Once this temperature has been deter-
mined, the following equation describing the heat balance
of the laminar layer can be used to solve for I0, the
formation rate of pure ice at the icing interface. The heat
balance for the laminar layer is (see Figure 3):
qlf
qsl
qc ¼ 0 ð5Þ
where qlf, is the flux of latent heat evolved at the icing
interface and conducted into the laminar layer. The next
term, qsl, is the flux (considered positive) of sensible heat
required to warm the impinging water entering the laminar
layer either from the mixed layer, or directly from the spray
if there is no mixed layer. This sensible heat flux is the
product of the specific heat of water, the mass flux of water
 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING AAC 9-5

Figure 3. Schematic of the model’s surface structure showing a falling film with the heat fluxes, which
gives rise to the heat balance of the laminar layer at the laminar layer’s boundaries. The latent heat flux,
qlf, is assumed to originate at the icing interface in the model. The scale is included for illustrative
purposes. It is not intended to be exact.

entering the laminar layer, and the temperature difference liquid film increases, more rapid crystal growth results, with
between the incorporated water and the water film. The an effect on the liquid entrapment.
curvature of the water film is ignored in the calculation of [23] In order to develop a model for the prediction of
the mean water film temperature and the sensible heat flux. accretion sponginess, we begin with the definition of ice
Because the flux of latent heat, qlf, may be expressed as a fraction, f:
product of the formation rate of pure ice, I0, and the latent
heat of fusion Lf (i.e., qlf = I0Lf), and because qc is known I0
f ¼ ð6Þ
from equation (4), equation (5) can be used to solve for I0. I0 þ R0
[21] So far we have described model development that
essentially parallels that of a conventional icing algorithm where I0 represents the formation rate of pure ice at the icing
with a surficial liquid film [Lozowski et al., 1995]. Like interface. This formation of ice constitutes the crystalline ice
conventional icing models, this allows for calculation of the matrix, while R0 is the mass flux of liquid water
pure ice growth rate (represented by I0) but not for the incorporated into this ice matrix. The ice fraction can also
determination of the flux of liquid entrapped in the ice be expressed in terms of the ratio of two growth velocities
matrix, R0. In order to calculate this flux, we will use a as follows:
theoretical cum empirical description of spongy liquid
inclusion at the icing interface. This is described in the ri Vi
following section. f ¼ ð7Þ
rw V1

where the first velocity, Vi, is the rate of advance of an icing

5. The Prediction of Sponginess
[22] In crystal growth theory, it has long been recognized
that the linear growth rate of the tips of dendrites is a
function of the supercooling in the bulk water into which
the dendrite is growing [Chalmers, 1964]. This concept has
been used in atmospheric icing research for some time to
help explain the growth mechanism of water-laden spongy
ice [Knight, 1968; Makkonen, 1987; List, 1990]. These
authors reason that, at the icing surface, dendritic growth
occurs that is driven by the supercooling of the liquid film.
In fact, it seems plausible that as the supercooling in the
interface assuming negligible sponginess (i.e., Vi = I0/ri),
and the second velocity, V1, is the rate of advance of the ice
dendrite tips at the icing interface, relative to the liquid in
the vicinity of the tip (i.e., V1 = (I0 + R0)/rw). The quantities
ri and rw are the densities of ice and water, respectively.
[24] First we derive an expression for Vi, the rate of
advance of an icing interface with no liquid entrapment. In
equation (5), the flux of sensible heat required to warm the
water entering the laminar layer, qsl, is typically a term
that is small compared with qc and qlf, and it can therefore
be neglected with little error. The result is that the latent
AAC 9-6 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING

heat term, qlf , is approximately equal to the conductive where k is a constant (k = aCi). The form of equation (14) is
term, qc. This leads to a simplified equation for the flux of similar to the crystal growth equation of Horvay and Cahn
pure ice: [1961] for various dendrite tip geometries.
[27] Next, we use this expression for V, the rate of
qlf qc advance of a single freely growing dendrite to model V1,
I0 ¼  ð8Þ the rate of advance of the dendritic front relative to the
Lf Lf
liquid in the vicinity of the dendrite tips in spongy icing. We
where Lf is the latent heat of fusion of water at 0
C. Using replace
Ti, the supercooling far from the idealized freely
equation (8), an approximate expression for Vi may be growing dendrite, with the supercooling at the outer surface
written: of the laminar layer in spongy icing (i.e.,
Ti =
T ). This is
at once a naı̈ve and simplifying assumption. It is perhaps
I0 qc
reasonable to expect some functional relation between the
Vi ¼  ð9Þ two supercoolings, and we have chosen to represent this as
ri ri Lf
an equivalence, rather than by introducing unknown but
tunable parameters into the model. In any event, an uncer-
where qc, the conductive heat flux, is given by equation (4). tainty in
T of a factor of 2 gives rise to an uncertainty in
Substituting for qc from equation (4), the final form for Vi is: ice fraction of less than 10% (equation (21)). Under these
modeling assumptions, the equation for the rate of advance
kw
T of the ice dendrites in spongy growth is:
Vi ¼ ð10Þ
ri L f d

T b
1
V1 ¼ k ð15Þ
Combining equations (7) and (10), the ice fraction can be R
written as:
Substitution of equation (15) into equation (11) results in an
kw
T equation for the ice fraction:
f ¼ ð11Þ
rw Lf dV1
kw R 1
f ¼ ð16Þ
[25] An expression for V1, the rate of advance of the ice krw Lf d
T b
2
dendrites, will now be developed and substituted into
equation (11). We begin with the empirical crystal growth where R/d is the ratio of the radius of curvature of the
equation: dendrite tip to the thickness of the falling film. Next, we
derive an expression for this ratio, based on the assumption
V ¼ a
Tib ð12Þ that the dendrite tip in spongy growth is at or near
equilibrium with the liquid in the vicinity of the tip. Figure 4
shows a two-dimensional schematic cross section of
where V is the rate of advance of a single ice crystal into
dendrite tips that protrude into the falling film from the
bulk supercooled liquid with a uniform temperature far from
icing interface. At the tips of the dendrites in spongy icing,
the ice crystal, and
Ti is the bulk liquid supercooling far
we assume that the Gibbs –Thompson equation holds, and
from the dendrite. The constants a and b have been
that the supercooling in the liquid at the dendrite tip is
evaluated experimentally by, for example, Tirmizi and Gill
related to the radius of curvature at the tip according to:
[1987] (a = 1.87  10
4, b = 2.09) and by Kallungal and
Barduhn [1977] (a = 1.18  10
4, b = 2.17) for ice dendrite
growth. Average values for the coefficient and exponent
Tr ¼ k w ¼
w
ð17Þ
were calculated based on these studies and are used in the R
present model equation for dendrite growth (i.e., a = 1.53 
10
4, b = 2.13). Equation (12) assumes a shape-preserving where
Tr is the supercooling at the dendrite tip, w is the
dendrite which has a radius of curvature at its tip that is Gibbs –Thompson coefficient and k is the curvature at the
unchanging with time. tip of an idealized two-dimensional dendrite (k = 1/R).
[26] The radius of curvature, R, at the dendritic tip is This is an idealization of three-dimensional dendrites that
inversely proportional to the supercooling in the bulk liquid are likely in spongy growth. The curvature of a three-
far from the tip [Kallungal and Barduhn, 1977]. Tirmizi and dimensional dendritic tip is k = 1/R + 1/R0, where R0 is the
Gill [1987] report that: larger radius of curvature at the tip in the basal plain.
Since R0/R is approximately 50 in freely growing ice
Ci dendrites [Tirmizi and Gill, 1987; Furukawa and Shimada,
R¼ ð13Þ

T i 1993], we estimate the effective curvature in our two-
dimensional idealization as k = 1/R. (Values of R under
where R is the smaller radius of curvature at the dendritic tip the conditions considered in this paper range from about
viewed on edge and Ci is a constant with a value of 0.88  0.5 to about 5 mm.) The Gibbs – Thompson coefficient is
10
6 mK. We now combine equations (12) and (13) to get: given by:

Tib
1 gw
V ¼k ð14Þ w ¼ ð18Þ
R
sf
 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING AAC 9-7

Figure 4. Schematic of the model’s surface structure showing a laminar falling film with a magnified
view of the model’s two-dimensional microstructure in the vicinity of the icing interface. The magnified
view shows dendrites with semicircular cross-sectional tips of radius, R, and the region of entrapped
liquid responsible for accretion sponginess. The scale is included for illustrative purposes. It is not
intended to be exact.

where gw is the interfacial surface tension between the
liquid and solid phases and
sf is the entropy of fusion
per unit volume. The entropy of fusion per unit volume is

sf = rwLf/Tf where Tf is the equilibrium freezing
temperature (Tf = 273.16 K). The value of gw, the
interfacial surface tension, used in the model, is an average
value based on the reported values of Kallungal and
Barduhn [1977], Jones [1973], Skapski et al. [1957], and
Poisot [1968] (i.e., gw = 4.75  10
2 J m
2). Since it may
be shown that the model’s ice fraction is linearly related to
gw, any uncertainty in gw will be directly reflected in the
ice fraction. Using this value, the Gibbs – Thompson
coefficient is calculated to be w = 3.885  10
8 mK.
[28] Since we assume that the conductive heat flux
through the laminar falling film is constant (i.e., no heat
source in the film), the temperature and hence the super-
cooling are linear functions of the distance perpendicular to
the icing interface in the falling film. The supercooling at
the icing interface is assumed to be negligible, with a
maximum value at the outer surface of the film. The
temperature as a function of displacement is:

T

T ð yÞ ¼ y ð19Þ
d dendrite. This morphological assumption leads to a semi-
where y is defined as the linear distance perpendicular to the
icing interface (Figure 3),
T =
T(d), and
T/d is the
gradient of supercooling in the laminar layer. If the dendrite
tip protrudes a distance, yR, into the laminar layer, then
using equation (19), and assuming that the isotherms are
parallel to the interface, the supercooling at the dendrite tip
is:

T

TR ¼ yR ð20Þ
d
Hence the ratio of dendritic penetration to the thickness of
the laminar layer is equal to the ratio of supercoolings (i.e.,
yR/d =
TR/
T).
[29] Even though the cross-sectional shape of ice den-
drites in spongy ice growth is not known, we have been
proceeding on the assumption that the growth is shape-
preserving much like freely growing dendrites. Solutions for
the growth rate of freely growing dendrites have been
derived for many different tip geometries and growth
assumptions [Ivantsov, 1947; Horvay and Cahn, 1961].
Tirmizi and Gill [1987] and Furukawa and Shimada
[1993] have observed freely growing ice dendrites that are
elliptical paraboloids in the vicinity of the tip. Faced with
the difficulty of having no published observations of the
shape of dendrites in spongy icing, we assume the two-
dimensional equivalent to the hemispherically tipped needle
circular dendritic tip penetrating the falling film at the icing
interface as shown in Figure 4. The array of dendrites,
because of their tip geometry, penetrate the laminar layer
only to a depth, yR, which equals the radius of curvature at
their tips (i.e., yR = R). With this morphological assumption
AAC 9-8 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING
in place, we can now restate the ratio equality that follows
equation (20) as R/d = yR/d =
TR/
T. Next, we combine
equations (13) and (17) to get R = w/
TR = Ci/
T or
TR/

T = w/Ci. Thus the ratios
TR/
T, w/Ci, and R/d are
equal with a value of 0.0442. The value of this ratio is
substituted into equation (16) to give the equations used in
the model for the calculation of the sponginess, l, and the
ice fraction, f:
C regime, the accretion sponginess will decrease from its
l ¼ 1
f with f ¼ ð21Þ

T 0:13
where the value of the constant C is 0.56.
[30] Equation (21) is used in the model after the super-
cooling at the outer surface of the film has been determined
using the heat balance at the outer surface of the laminar
layer (equation (3)). Once
T and f are known, along with
I0, the formation rate of pure ice, the entrapment flux of
liquid, R0, may be calculated as described in the next
section.
6. The Icing Regimes
6.1. The ‘‘Dry’’ Icing Regime
[31] The model uses the heat balance equation for the
mixed layer (equation (3)) to calculate the temperature at the
outer surface of the laminar layer, T2. If it finds that T2 comparing its prediction of sponginess and icing flux with
0
C, the model predicts that no icing will occur. This can
occur if the spray is above freezing as in marine icing.
Conversely, if it finds that T2 < 0
C, the model predicts ice
growth. The formation rate of pure ice, I0, is calculated
using the heat balance equation for the laminar layer
(equation (5)). If I0, is found to exceed the flux of impinging
spray (i.e., I0 R4) then ‘‘dry’’ icing is predicted by the
model, no unfrozen liquid is either shed or accreted, and the
ice growth rate is determined by R4.
6.2. The Spongy Shedding Icing Regime
[32] The spongy shedding icing regime is predicted in the
model if the impinging mass flux of water, R4, is large
enough to form both a spongy accretion and a falling film of
excess liquid. This regime occurs when the model predicts
that I0 < R4. The accretion sponginess, l, is calculated from
equation (21). Thereafter, the entrapped liquid flux for the
spongy shedding growth regime is calculated from:
l jecting the samples to a calorimetric measurement of
R0 ¼ I0 ð22Þ
1
l
6.3. The Glaze Icing and Spongy Nonshedding
Regimes
[33] The glaze icing regime is predicted by the model if
the impinging spray forms an accretion with no sponginess
(i.e., l = 0) and there is a falling film of excess liquid. This
occurs in the model, if the accretion sponginess calculated
in equation (21) is found to be l
0. In this regime, l is set configuration of the experiments, because of the complexity
to zero and the entrapped liquid, R0, is also set to zero.
[34] The spongy nonshedding regime is predicted by the
model if the impinging spray flux, R4, is large enough to
form a spongy accretion but not a falling film of excess
liquid. In this regime, the model predicts I0 < R4, a positive
value of l (from equation (21)) and a value of R0 from
equation (22). In the spongy nonshedding regime, I0 + R0 >
R4, and hence there is no excess liquid available to form a
falling film. For this regime the final value of R0 is
calculated with:
R0 ¼ R4
I0 ð23Þ
In the case of the model’s spongy nonshedding ice growth
value calculated with equation (21), and is instead
computed from:
R0
l¼ ð24Þ
I0 þ R 0
where R4 = I0 + R0. In this event, the flux of shed liquid, Rt
= 0. The spongy nonshedding regime can be thought of as
icing with a net collection efficiency of 1.0 (i.e., no liquid
shedding), and a thermodynamically determined spongi-
ness. We note here that in the present model, we do not
consider any loss of impinging spray due to splashing.
7. Experimental Comparisons
[35] The performance of the model has been examined by
measurements made in the Marine Icing Wind Tunnel at the
University of Alberta (J. Shi, unpublished data, 1996).
These freshwater icing experiments were performed with
a slowly rotating cylinder of diameter 4.0 cm. The cylinder
was oriented horizontally below the spray nozzles. The
nozzles were set to generate two spray mass fluxes (0.05
and 0.1 kg m
2 s
1) at the icing cylinder. Nineteen icing
experiments were completed at the lower spray flux (0.05
kg m
2 s
1) and 39 experiments were completed at the
higher flux (0.1 kg m
2 s
1). The low spray flux data set
was obtained at a single airflow speed of 10 m s
1, while
the high flux data were obtained at airspeeds of 10, 20, and
30 m s
1. The airflow and gravity accelerated the spray
vertically downward toward the cylinder, cooling the drop-
lets on the way. Experiments were run for air temperatures
ranging from
0.5
C to
25
C.
[36] The average icing flux was determined for each
experiment. The sponginess of the accreted ice was also
determined by first removing the accretion and then sub-
sponginess. The uncertainty in measuring sponginess or
liquid mass fraction was estimated to be ±0.1.
[37] Comparison of these data for a horizontal, slowly
rotating cylinder in the experiments with a vertical non-
rotating cylinder in the model is not ideal. We do not make a
more suitable comparison because we are unaware of any
experimental sponginess data for the vertical stubby cylin-
der configuration of the model. At the same time, we have
avoided trying to model the horizontal rotating cylinder
of the wind-driven surface liquid flow. We nevertheless
proceed with the comparison because there are some sim-
ilarities between the two configurations. For example,
similar cylinder diameters and environmental conditions
should give rise to a similar heat transfer regime. Also,
 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING
Figure 5. Model-predicted sponginess (nondimensional)
versus measured sponginess for 19 icing experiments with a
spray flux of 0.05 kg m
2 s
1 (J. Shi, unpublished data,
1996). The model was run with a spray impingement
temperature, T4 = Ta/2 (temperatures in
C).
similar spray fluxes should produce similar liquid film
thicknesses. Consequently, we will proceed with a compar-
ison with the Shi data and also, later, with the data of Lesins
et al. [1980] for a horizontal rotating cylinder in the
University of Toronto Icing Wind Tunnel. However, before
making a comparison with Lesins et al. [1980], we will
compare sponginess, l, and icing flux, (I0 + R0), with the
Shi data from the University of Alberta Marine Icing Wind
Tunnel in Figures 5 and 6.
[38] We will begin with a consideration of spray impinge-
ment temperature, which is an essential input variable for
the model. To the best of our knowledge, the spray impinge-
ment temperature has never been directly measured in any
icing experiments. It is difficult even to imagine how one
might go about measuring it. Consequently, one is left with
trying to infer the impinging droplet temperatures by other
means such as a single droplet trajectory model with heat
transfer. Various authors have devised such models [e.g.,
Lozowski et al., 1979; Gates et al., 1988]. They are
instructive but not definitive. They demonstrate, for exam-
ple, that the final droplet impingement temperature depends,
inter alia, on the initial droplet temperature and injection
velocity, both of which are typically unknown. It also
depends on droplet size, air temperature, airspeed, the
distance from the sprayers to the measuring section and
the geometrical details of the wind tunnel contraction. These
studies have shown, not unexpectedly, that small liquid
droplets (20 mm diameter) quickly achieve thermal equi-
librium with the airstream, while larger droplets (100 mm
diameter) do not achieve thermal equilibrium, and can have
impingement temperatures many degrees warmer than the
air temperature. In addition, the spray may cool the air,
although it is readily shown that for spray liquid water
AAC 9-9
contents up to about 10 g m
3, the air temperature change is
almost two orders of magnitude smaller than the spray
temperature change. So, without knowing the details of
the droplet spectrum, the injection conditions and the wind
tunnel configuration, it is difficult to make a reliable
estimate of spray impingement temperature using such
models. In view of this dilemma, we have chosen here to
use a simple estimate of spray impingement temperature,
equal to the average of the freezing temperature and the air
temperature.
[39] Since the spray impingement temperature was not
measured (J. Shi, unpublished data, 1996), we estimate the
droplet temperature as the mean of 0
C (approximately the
nozzle exit temperature) and the air stream temperature.
This means that our model predictions are dependent on the
assumption of partially supercooled impinging spray. In
addition, we use the cylinder diameter from the experiment
as both the diameter and height of the cylinder in the model
predictions.
[40] In Figure 5, for the 19 trials with low spray flux (0.05
kg m
2 s
1), the model-predicted sponginess compares well
with the experimental data, given the experimental error
bars of ±0.1 The model predictions and experimental
observations of sponginess both have a range of from 0.2
to 0.4, and there appears to be little systematic error in the
predictions. The model-predicted icing fluxes also compare
quite well with the experiments. The largest absolute error is
less than 0.005 kg m
2 s
1 for the range of icing fluxes
shown in Figure 6.
[41] In Figure 7, for the 39 trials with high spray flux (0.1
kg m
2 s
1), the model-predicted sponginess compares well
once again with the experimental data. The model predic-
tions of sponginess lie within ±0.1 of the experimental
measurements of sponginess, consistent with the experimen-
tal error bars. The model predictions and experimental
Figure 6. Model-predicted icing flux, (I0 + R0), versus
measured icing flux for 19 icing experiments with a spray
flux of 0.05 kg m
2 s
1 (J. Shi, unpublished data, 1996).
The model was run with a spray impingement temperature,
T4 = Ta/2 (temperatures in
C).
AAC 9 - 10 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING
Figure 7. Model-predicted sponginess (nondimensional)
versus measured sponginess for 39 icing experiments with a
spray flux of 0.1 kg m
2 s
1 (J. Shi, unpublished data,
1996). The model was run with a spray impingement
temperature, T4 = Ta/2 (temperatures in
C).
observations of sponginess both have a range from about 0.2
to about 0.45, and there appears to be little systematic error in
the predictions. The model-predicted icing fluxes also com-
pare quite well with the experiments. The largest absolute
error is about 0.01 kg m
2 s
1 for the range of icing fluxes
shown in Figure 8. There is a systematic overprediction by
Figure 8. Model-predicted icing flux, (I0 + R0), versus
measured icing flux for 39 icing experiments with a spray
flux of 0.1 kg m
2 s
1 (J. Shi, unpublished data, 1996). The
model was run with a spray impingement temperature, T4 =
Ta/2 (temperatures in
C).
the model at lower icing fluxes. Next, we will compare the
model prediction of sponginess with the experimental data of
Lesins et al. [1980]. We begin by briefly describing their
experiment.
[42] Lesins et al. [1980] performed freshwater icing
experiments in a refrigerated wind tunnel using a slowly
rotating (0.5 Hz) cylinder of diameter 1.9 cm. The cylinder
was oriented horizontally 1.8 m above the spray nozzles. An
upward airflow with a speed of 18 m s
1 carried the spray
up to the cylinder, cooling the droplets en route. They varied
the liquid water content from 2 to 40 g m
3 while the air
temperature was varied from
2
C to
20
C. They then
measured the thickness of the accretion on the cylinder,
along with the ice fraction of a sample of the accretion using
a centrifuge method.
[43] Lesins et al. [1980] performed a least squares best fit
to their data that resulted in an empirical equation for ice
fraction, f, as a function of liquid water content. They
averaged their data over an air temperature range from

4
C to
16
C, because the measured ice fractions over
this temperature range had a variation that was less than the
uncertainty in their measurements (about ±0.1). Their stat-
istical fitting function yields an asymptote at a solid fraction
of f = 0.25, even though their lowest solid fraction measure-
ment was 0.33. Their fitted curve for ice fraction as a
function of liquid water content is shown in Figure 9 as a
solid line, with error bars that express an uncertainty of ±0.1.
[44] Since the spray temperature on impingement was not
measured by Lesins, we have used the mean of 0
C and the
air temperature as an estimate of the temperature of the
Figure 9. Model-predicted ice fraction (nondimensional)
as a function of liquid water content for three air
temperatures, Ta =
4
C (squares), Ta =
10
C (circles),
and Ta =
16
C (diamonds). The model was run for the
conditions of Lesins et al. [1980] with a spray impingement
temperature, T4 = Ta/2 (temperatures in
C). A numerical fit
to the experimental results of Lesins et al. [1980] is also
shown as the heavy solid curve with error bars.
 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING AAC 9 - 11

Figure 10. Model-predicted sponginess (nondimensional) as a function of air temperature for a spray
flux of 0.1 kg m
2 s
1. The three curves are for airspeeds of 5 (squares), 10 (circles), and 30 m s
1
(diamonds). Seventeen icing experiments (J. Shi, unpublished data, 1996) with 10 m s
1 airspeed are
plotted (circles) for comparison with the 10 m s
1 model-predicted curve (solid circles). The model was
run with a spray impingement temperature, T4 = Ta/2 (temperatures in
C).

impinging spray. Once again, the cylinder diameter and
height in the model is taken to be equal to the cylinder
diameter in the Lesins et al. [1980] experiment (1.9 cm).
Since the empiricism from the work of Lesins et al. [1980] is
valid for an air temperature range from
4
C to
16
C, we
have shown model ice fraction curves for air temperatures of

4
C (square symbols),
10
C (circular symbols), and

16
C (diamond-shaped symbols) in Figure 9. In Figure
9, the model-predicted ice fraction compares well qualita-
tively with the result of Lesins et al. [1980]. The model’s
prediction shows a tendency similar to the Lesins et al.
[1980] data over the full range of liquid water content, and it
lies within the experimental error of the results of Lesins et
al. [1980] over a significant portion of the range of liquid
water content. Nevertheless, it is clear that the model over-
predicts ice fraction at high liquid water content and under-
predicts ice fraction at low liquid water contents. The close
proximity of the three model-predicted curves agrees qual-
itatively with the observation of Lesins et al. [1980] that the
ice fraction (measured with an uncertainty of ±0.1) is nearly
constant over the air temperature range
4
C to
16
C.
[45] Over the range of liquid water content shown in
Figure 9, the model predicts three different icing regimes as
outlined in section 6 above. When the ice fraction, f = 1.0,
the model predicts a dry icing regime. The second, third and
fourth square and circular symbols, and the second through
eighth diamond symbols from the left, at low liquid con-
tents, identify the spongy nonshedding ice growth regime.
In this region, the curves have a steep slope, suggesting that
that the range of liquid water contents that produces the
spongy nonshedding icing regime is quite small. A direct
comparison with the work of Lesins et al. [1980] cannot be
made concerning this point. However, it is clear that the
model slopes are much higher in this regime than the
smoothed data of Lesins et al. [1980] would suggest.
[46] With increasing liquid water content, the model
predicts a transition from the spongy nonshedding regime
to the spongy shedding regime. At higher liquid water
contents, the curves are close to horizontal, suggesting an
insensitivity of sponginess to liquid water content in this
regime. In summary, the model predicts three different icing
regimes for the range of liquid water contents shown in
Figure 9. The transition from the spongy nonshedding
regime to the spongy shedding regime will be discussed
further in section 9. Next we examine the sensitivity of the
model to variations in air temperature.
8. The Model Sensitivity
[47] In order to examine the model’s performance over a
range of air temperature, we selected input icing conditions
similar to those of the high spray flux experiment (J. Shi,
unpublished data, 1996) described in section 7 above. This
selection allowed us to plot sponginess for the 14 exper-
imental runs with airspeeds of 10 m s
1 in Figure 10. We
also compare icing flux in Figure 11. The input airspeed is
AAC 9 - 12 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING

Figure 11. Model-predicted icing flux as a function of air temperature for a spray flux of 0.1 kg m
2
s
1. Three curves (solid lines) are shown for airspeeds of 5 (squares), 10 (circles), and 30 m s
1
(diamonds). Seventeen icing experiments (J. Shi, unpublished data, 1996) at 10 m s
1 airspeed are
plotted (circles) for comparison with the 10 m s
1 model-predicted curve. The model was run with a
spray impingement temperature, T4 = Ta/2 (temperatures in
C).

10 m s
1 with a spray flux of 0.1 kg m
2 s
1 (i.e., a liquid
water content of 10 g m
3). Once again, the spray impinge-
ment temperature is taken to be the mean of 0
C and the air
temperature.
[48] In Figure 10, the model-predicted curves (solid lines)
are for three airspeeds 5, 10, and 30 m s
1. In all three
curves, the onset of icing begins very near the freezing point
in the spongy shedding regime, and the sponginess
increases slowly as the air temperature decreases. There is
no predicted glaze ice regime under these conditions. The
sponginess at the onset of icing is a function of the airspeed.
[49] As the air temperature decreases, the sponginess in
all three model-predicted curves increases until reaching the
transition point from the spongy shedding regime to the
spongy nonshedding regime. This transition point is marked
by the discontinuity in each of the curves. These transition
points occur at lower air temperatures as the airspeed
increases, and each sponginess curve becomes nearly linear
after the transition point.
[50] As the air temperature decreases in the spongy non-
shedding regime, all the collected spray flux is either
solidified or remains as entrapped liquid according to the
heat balance at the icing surface. Therefore, with a further
decrease in air temperature, the accretion finally reaches
zero sponginess or dry icing. In Figure 10, this transition
occurs where the model-predicted curves intersect the air
temperature axis (i.e., at zero sponginess). This occurs at air
temperatures of about
40
C and
70
C for the 30 and 10
m s
1 model-predicted curves, respectively. Thus the model
predicts a third kind of transition for the range of conditions
represented in Figure 10, namely the transition from spongy
nonshedding to dry icing.
[51] Figure 11 shows the onset of icing near the freezing
point and the transition from spongy shedding to spongy
nonshedding icing. The spongy shedding regime begins at
an air temperature near the freezing point and exhibits a
nearly linear variation of icing flux with air temperature.
This nearly linear form of the icing flux function is in part
caused by the fact that the sponginess is relatively insensi-
tive to air temperature. This relative insensitivity of spongi-
ness, which is apparent in Figure 10, was first proposed by
Makkonen [1987] for sea spray icing, and subsequently by
Makkonen [1990] for freshwater icing. It is also clear that
the sponginess values in Figure 10 could lead to a consid-
erable increase in the accretion loading over what would be
predicted were sponginess ignored.
[52] In Figure 10, the model-predicted sponginess curve
that is marked with solid circles compares reasonably well
with the experimental data (open circles). The model under-
predicts sponginess over the air temperature range
20
C to
0
C. However, the qualitative form of the experimental data
appears to match the model-predicted curves quite well,
considering the uncertainty of ±0.1 in the experimental
measurements. In Figure 11, the model-predicted curve
 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING
for icing flux that is also marked with solid circles,
compares reasonably well with the experimental points
(open circles). The model slightly underpredicts the icing
flux in the air temperature range 0
C to
10
C and then
overpredicts at lower air temperatures.
9. The Spongy Icing Transition
[53] List [1990] proposed that the ice accretion in spongy
icing consists of a dendritic mesh growing into a surface
water skin that may be up to 1 mm in thickness. He suggests
that the physical picture of the water film includes a nearly
linear temperature gradient that is responsible for conduc-
tive heat loss from the advancing dendrites. Knight [1991]
argues that ‘‘if an ice dendrite or plate were to extend a little
farther into the skin than its neighbors, it would see a lower
temperature, grow faster than its neighbors, see therefore a
yet lower temperature, grow yet faster, and so on.’’ He goes
on to suggest that such an unstable dendritic growth would
occur throughout the surface water film. In this way, the
liquid film would be filled with dendrites leaving little or no
surface liquid.
[54] The physical structure of spongy icing that List
[1990] proposes is quite similar to the surface structure of
our spongy shedding regime. We suggest that the spongy
shedding regime is the result of stable and steady dendritic
growth that occurs over a range of environmental condi-
tions. Hence, we disagree with Knight’s conceptual model,
at least in general. However, the physical picture that Knight
[1991] describes is similar to the surface structure of our
spongy nonshedding regime. In our spongy nonshedding
regime, the dendritic growth has a rate of advance that is
sufficient to entrap all of the collected spray flux in the
advancing dendritic mesh. This occurs when the imposed
heat loss to the environment produces dendritic growth that
is fast enough to allow all of the dendrites to reach the
surface of the liquid film.
[55] Blackmore and Lozowski [1998] model the spongy
shedding regime of spray icing with an ad hoc empirical
approach. In the present approach we model both the
spongy shedding regime and the spongy nonshedding
regime from first principles of the growth of an array of
dendrites at the icing interface. This new approach allows
for the prediction of the transition between the two regimes.
This transition is evidenced by the discontinuities in the
model-predicted curves in Figures 9, 10, and 11. Therefore,
the model’s transition is a function of liquid water content
and air temperature, both of which influence the icing
surface thermodynamics.
[56] Each of the spongy growth transitions from spongy
nonshedding to spongy shedding, predicted by the model,
occurs when the rate of advance of the model’s dendrites
matches the rate of accretion of liquid water at the icing
surface. For the three transitions in Figure 9, these rates are
3.7, 7.55, and 12.3 cm h
1, at
4
C,
10
C and
16
C,
respectively. In the model, this occurs at laminar film
thicknesses of 32.9, 41.7, and 49.1 mm, respectively. Even
though Blackmore and Lozowski [1998] could not calculate
these film thicknesses with their model, they hypothesized
that the surface liquid film would be completely entrapped
by the advancing dendrites at certain values of film thick-
ness. They called this value the critical film thickness, and
AAC 9 - 13
argued that it would mark the transition from spongy
shedding to spongy nonshedding growth.
10. Discussion
[57] The model predictions of sponginess agree reason-
ably well with two data sets as described in section 8 above.
In addition to these favorable comparisons with the exper-
imental data, the predictions of the model are in general
agreement with other findings that suggest that the liquid
fraction is rather insensitive to growth conditions and is
typically in the range of 0.3– 0.5 [Gates et al., 1986; Lock
and Foster, 1990].
[58] The model-predicted sponginess shows no clear
systematic error in comparison with the data plotted in
Figures 5 and 7 (J. Shi, unpublished data, 1996). In contrast,
the model-predicted icing flux is systematically larger than
the experimental icing flux in Figures 6 and 8. This system-
atic error appears to be more pronounced for experimental
icing fluxes below about 0.025 kg m
2 s
1. A possible
explanation for this overprediction is that the model heat
loss from the icing surface is too large. For example, if the
impinging spray temperature assumed in the model were
lower than the actual spray temperature, the model-pre-
dicted sensible heat loss from the icing surface would be too
large. This in turn, would give a large value for the growth
rate of pure ice and with sponginess taken into account, the
predicted icing flux would be even larger than the actual
icing flux. Thus experimental data that lacks impinging
spray temperature measurements may confound the com-
parison with the model’s prediction of icing flux.
[59] The comparison with the fitted ice fraction curve of
Lesins et al. [1980] shown in Figure 9 is qualitatively good,
but the details are problematical. The model’s glaze ice
predictions (f = 1.0) at low liquid water contents around 2 g
m
3 or less agree reasonably well with the Lesins et al.
[1980] fitted curve, where f = 1.0 at approximately the same
liquid water content. The model underpredicts at low liquid
water contents, and overpredicts at liquid water contents
above about 8 g m
3. The reason for this discrepancy
remains elusive. However, part of the difference, at least
in the spongy, nonshedding regime, may have to do with
loss of liquid through splashing in the experiments. This is
reflected in measured net collection efficiencies as low as
0.2 at high liquid water contents, and warm air temperatures
[Lesins et al., 1980]. Having no way to address the splash-
ing problem in the model, we assume that the net collection
efficiency is unity. It would be reasonable therefore to
compare the model and experimental results under the same
net impinging liquid flux. Hence, our model results should
really be compared with the Lesins et al. results at higher
liquid water contents, to allow for loss of water due to
splashing in the experiments. This should improve the
agreement in the spongy, nonshedding regime.
[60] If the ambient air temperature decreases sufficiently,
the potential accretion mass flux of spongy ice will increase
to the point where it equals or exceeds the available surface
flux of liquid. In this regime, the model predicts a spongy
accretion without liquid shedding. Blackmore and Lozowski
[1998] postulate that this will occur at a certain critical
liquid film thickness in spray icing. The present model
demonstrates this critical film thickness, and models the
AAC 9 - 14 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING
transition from ‘‘wet’’ spongy growth (with an organized
flowing surface film) to nonshedding spongy growth (with
essentially no surface liquid). If the air temperature is
decreased still further, the model’s sponginess decreases
until ‘‘dry’’ ice growth occurs with no surface liquid or
entrapped liquid.
[61] If the air temperature is increased to values near the
freezing point, the model’s predicted sponginess also
decreases. This occurs as a result of reduced environmental
heat loss and supercooling in the surficial film. If conditions
include enough excess surficial liquid and an air temper-
ature near enough to the freezing point, glaze icing is
predicted, with its characteristic solid accretion and no
liquid entrapment.
[62] Kachurin and Morachevskii [1965] derive a mathe-
matical model of spray ice accretion for a horizontal planar
icing surface. They assume growth of solid ice under a wind
sheared water film that is turbulent due to the large air-
speeds characteristic of aircraft icing. They present a math-
ematical analysis that suggests that the surface liquid water
film becomes unstable at a particular critical film thickness.
They also suggest that if the thickness of the surface film
becomes less than this critical film thickness, then dendritic
growth incorporates the entire flux of collected liquid. In
their model, a transition occurs from solid ice growth under
a turbulent water film to an icing condition in which ‘‘the
droplets impinging on the solid body crystallize individually
without merging into a continuous stable film.’’ Kachurin
and Morachevskii [1965] also describe this transition as
occurring from a hard solid accretion to an opaque hetero-
geneous accretion and, as such, seem to describe a transition
from glaze to rime icing. Our model, on the other hand,
typically predicts an intermediate regime consisting of a
laminar film and spongy growth.
[63] If we were to input into our model impinging droplet
temperatures equal to the air temperature as Kachurin and
Morachevskii [1965] do, our predicted accretion would be
even more spongy rather than solid. In addition, our model
suggests that higher airspeeds would generate increasing
sponginess. In this way, our model suggests that aircraft
icing conditions may potentially generate very spongy
growth with a larger accretion than if the accretion were
glaze, as Kachurin and Morachevskii [1965] suggest. The
difference in icing regimes between the two models may
have something to do with the absence of the effect of wind
stress on our model’s falling film and the absence of high
dynamic pressures that could play a significant role in
driving an internal liquid flow within the spongy matrix.
Specific tests should be carried out to confirm this possi-
bility, and the effect of wind stress and dynamic pressure
should be included in our model before aircraft icing
conditions are examined.
11. Conclusions
[64] A new theoretical model of spray icing on a vertical
stationary cylinder has been developed. It is based on the
morphological assumption of two-dimensional dendrites
with semicircular cross-sectional tips, growing ahead of a
0
C isothermal icing interface. The dendrites penetrate a
supercooled water film, grow in a stable fashion, and entrap
surface water to produce spongy ice. The model also
predicts a spongy icing transition from the spongy shedding
to the spongy nonshedding regime. The model predicts
spongy shedding ice growth, spongy nonshedding growth
without surface liquid, as well as glaze icing, dry icing and
no icing.
[65] The model’s prediction of ice fraction compares well
with the data of Lesins et al. [1980]. A comparison of model
predictions of sponginess and icing flux with experimental
data from the University of Alberta (J. Shi, unpublished
data, 1996) produced good results, as well. These results are
particularly good, considering the uncertainty in ice fraction
or sponginess measurements of ±0.1. Nearly all the model
predictions lie within this range of uncertainty of the data.
Nevertheless, there are significant physical differences
between the model and the experiments. Consequently, we
offer a caveat concerning the indiscriminate use of the
model to predict icing sponginess.
[66] An important source of the discrepancy between
model and experimental results is the assumption used to
estimate the impinging spray temperature in the model. No
experimental investigation of spongy spray icing has yet
included the measurement of this parameter, and we rec-
ommend that this be done for future spongy icing inves-
tigations. Also, no experimental investigation has directly
observed the morphology of ensembles of dendrites at the
surface of a spongy accretion. We recommend this for future
modeling of the dendrites in spongy growth.
[67] The aircraft icing model of Kachurin and Morachev-
skii [1965] includes the effect of wind stress at the surface
of a horizontal flowing water film. They predict a transition
from glaze icing to rime icing at airspeeds typical of aircraft
icing. By extending the model of Lozowski et al. [1995] to
include the theoretical dendritic growth model presented
here along with a model of wind stress, the accretion
regimes typical of aircraft icing could be investigated. Such
a model would be more directly comparable with available
cylinder icing data.
[68] Since spongy accretion is well known to occur under
conditions of sea spraying, an extension of the present
spongy growth model to include saline spray would also
be valuable. Because of a possible similarity in dendritic
growth between freshwater spray icing and sea spray icing,
it may not be too difficult to extend the present model to
include the presence of brine at the icing surface.
[69] Acknowledgments. We thank John Shi and Victor Chung of the
University of Alberta for sharing with us the results of their unpublished
Marine Icing Wind Tunnel experiments. We also thank C. A. Knight for his
valuable comments on the manuscript. This work was funded in part by the
Academy of Finland, Vaisala Inc., and the Natural Sciences and Engineer-
ing Research Council of Canada.
References
Blackmore, R. Z., Vessel icing and spongy accretion modelling, Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, 1996.
Blackmore, R. Z., and E. P. Lozowski, A freshwater spongy spray icing
model with surficial structure, paper presented at 7th International
Workshop on Atmospheric Icing of Structures (IWAIS), Univ. du
Que. à Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Canada, 3 – 7 June, 1996.
Blackmore, R. Z., and E. P. Lozowski, A theoretical spongy spray icing
model with surficial structure, Atmos. Res., 49, 267 – 288, 1998.
Chalmers, B., Principles of Solidification, 319 pp., John Wiley, New York,
1964.
Dukler, A. E., and O. P. Bergelin, Characteristics of flow in falling liquid
films, Chem. Eng. Prog., 48(11), 557 – 563, 1952.
 BLACKMORE ET AL.: NEW MODEL OF SPONGY ICING
Fraser, D., C. K. Rush, and D. Baxter, Thermodynamic limitations of ice
accretion instruments, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 34, 146 – 154, 1953.
Furukawa, Y., and W. Shimada, Three-dimensional pattern formation dur-
ing growth of ice dendrites: Its relation to universal law of dendritic
growth, J. Cryst. Growth, 128, 234 – 239, 1993.
Gates, E. M., R. Narten, E. P. Lozowski, and L. Makkonen, Marine icing
and spongy ice, in 8th IAHR Symposium on Ice, Iowa City, IA, vol. 2, pp.
153 – 163, Int. Assoc. Hydraulic Res., Espoo, Finland, 1986.
Gates, E. M., W. Lam, and E. P. Lozowski, Spray evolution in icing wind
tunnels, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 15, 65 – 74, 1988.
Horvay, G., and J. W. Cahn, Dendritic and spheroidal growth, Acta Met., 9,
695 – 705, 1961.
Ivantsov, G. P., Growth of crystals, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 58, 567 – 569,
in Russian, 1947.
Jones, D. R. H., The measurement of solid – liquid interfacial energies from
the shape of grain-boundary grooves, Philos. Mag., 27, 569 – 584, 1973.
Kachurin, L. G., and V. G. Morachevskii, Kinetics of Phase Transitions of
Water in the Atmosphere (translated by Z. Lerman, Israel Program for Sci.
Transl., IPST Cat. 1807, 1966), pp. 59 – 73, Leningrad State Univ., Le-
ningrad, 1965.
Kallungal, J. P., and A. J. Barduhn, Growth rate of an ice crystal in sub-
cooled pure water, AIChE J., 23, 294 – 303, 1977.
Knight, C. A., On the mechanism of spongy hailstone growth, J. Atmos.
Sci., 25, 440 – 444, 1968.
Knight, C. A., Comments on ‘‘Physics of supercooling of thin water skins
covering gyrating hailstones’’, J. Atmos. Sci., 48, 217 – 218, 1991.
Lesins, G. B., Hailstone studies in an icing tunnel, M.S. thesis, Univ. of
Toronto, Toronto, 1983.
Lesins, G. B., R. List, and P. I. Joe, Ice accretions, part I, Testing of new
atmospheric icing concepts, J. Rech. Atmos., 14, 347 – 356, 1980.
List, R., General heat and mass exchange of spherical hailstones, J. Atmos.
Sci., 20, 189 – 197, 1963.
List, R., Physics of supercooling of thin water skins covering gyrating
hailstones, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 1919 – 1925, 1990.
Lock, G. H. S., and I. B. Foster, Experiments on the growth of spongy ice
near a stagnation point, J. Glaciol., 36, 143 – 150, 1990.
Lozowski, E. P., and E. M. Gates, On the modelling of ice accretion, in
Freezing and Melting Heat Transfer in Engineering, edited by K. C.
Cheng and N. Seki, pp. 615 – 660, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia,
Pa., 1991.
AAC 9 - 15
Lozowski, E. P., J. R. Stallabrass, and P. M. Hearty, The icing of an
unheated non-rotating cylinder in liquid water droplet-ice crystal clouds,
61 pp., Natl. Res. Counc. Canada, Rep. LTR-LT-96, 1979.
Lozowski, E. P., A. M. Kobos, and L. G. Kachurin, Influence of the surface
liquid film on cylinder icing under marine conditions, in 14th Interna-
tional Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE), Vol. 4, pp. 115 – 122, Am. Soc. of Mech. Eng., New York, 1995.
Makkonen, L., Salinity and growth rate of ice formed by sea spray, Cold
Reg. Sci. Technol., 14, 163 – 171, 1987.
Makkonen, L., The origin of spongy ice, in 10th International Symposium
on Ice, August 20 – 23, Espoo, Finland, pp. 1022 – 1030, Int. Assoc.
Hydraulic Res., Espoo, Finland, 1990.
Makkonen, L., Models for the growth of rime, glaze, icicles and wet snow
on structures, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 358, 2913 – 2939,
2000.
Morgan, G., and F. Prodi, A laboratory observation of hailstone ‘‘lobe’’
formation following the termination of spongy growth by accretion,
J. Appl. Meteorol., 8, 840 – 842, 1969.
Poisot, J. M., The linear growth rate of ice crystals in flowing subcooled
water, M.S. thesis, Syracuse Univ., New York, 1968.
Roos, v. d. D. S., and H.-D. R. Pum, Sponginess in ice grown by accretion,
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 640 – 657, 1974.
Skapski, A. S., R. Billups, and A. Rooney, Capillary cone method for
determination of surface tension of solids, J. Chem. Phys., 26, 1350 –
1351, 1957.
Tirmizi, S. H., and W. N. Gill, Effect of natural convection on growth
velocity and morphology of dendritic ice crystals, J. Cryst. Growth, 85,
488 – 502, 1987.
Tirmizi, S. H., and W. N. Gill, Experimental investigation on the dynamics
of spontaneous pattern formation during dendritic ice crystal growth,
J. Cryst. Growth, 96, 277 – 292, 1989.























R. Z. Blackmore, Department of Natural Sciences, King’s University
College, Edmonton, Alberta, T6B 2H3, Canada.
E. P. Lozowski, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E3, Canada.
L. Makkonen, Laboratory of Structural Engineering, Technical Research
Centre of Finland, Box 1805, 02044 Espoo, Finland.