75

I have read the explanation for this in several textbooks, but I am struggling to understand it via Archimedes' principle. If someone can clarify with a diagram or something so I can understand or a clear equation explanation that would be great.

9 Answers9

65

Good question.

Assume we have one cube of ice in a glass of water. The ice displaces some of that water, raising the height of the water by an amount we will call $h$.

Archimedes' principle states that the weight of water displaced will equal the upward buoyancy force provided by that water. In this case,

$$\text{Weight of water displaced} = m_\text{water displaced}g = \rho Vg = \rho Ahg$$

where $V$ is volume of water displaced, $\rho$ is density of water, $A$ is the area of the ice cube base and $g$ is acceleration due to gravity.

Therefore the upward buoyancy force acting on the ice is $\rho Ahg$.

Now the downward weight of ice is $m_\text{ice}g$.

Now because the ice is neither sinking nor floating, these must balance. That is:

$$\rho Ahg = m_\text{ice}g$$

Therefore,

$$h = \frac{m_\text{ice}}{\rho A}$$

Now when the ice melts, this height difference due to buoyancy goes to 0. But now an additional mass $m_\text{ice}$ of water has been added to the cup in the form of water. Since mass is conserved, the mass of ice that has melted has been turned into an equivalent mass of water.

The volume of such water added to the cup is thus:

$$V = \frac{m_\text{ice}}{\rho}$$

and therefore,

$$Ah = \frac{m_\text{ice}}{\rho}$$

So,

$$h = \frac{m_\text{ice}}{\rho A}$$

That is, the height the water has increased due to the melted ice is exactly the same as the height increase due to buoyancy before the ice had melted.


Edit: For completion, since it is raised as a question in the comments

Melting icebergs boost sea level rise, because the water they contain is not salty.

Although most of the contributions to sea-level rise come from water and ice moving from land into the ocean, it turns out that the melting of floating ice causes a small amount of sea-level rise, too.

Fresh water, of which icebergs are made, is less dense than salty sea water. So while the amount of sea water displaced by the iceberg is equal to its weight, the melted fresh water will take up a slightly larger volume than the displaced salt water. This results in a small increase in the water level.

Globally, it doesn’t sound like much – just 0.049 millimetres per year – but if all the sea ice currently bobbing on the oceans were to melt, it could raise sea level by 4 to 6 centimeters.

Kenshin
  • 5,571
  • 3
  • 32
  • 62
  • 1
    THANK YOU!! much better than any textbook explanation when you added the "h" term! very easy to see now. – stackseverywhere Apr 30 '14 at 15:45
  • IIRC the water level when the ice is melted will actually be marginally lower. Water molecules are dipolar, and thus repel one another when forced into close proximity and kept there by a solid state, forcing the ice to expand. Thus the volume of a block of ice is slightly larger than that of an equivalent amount of water. – Bob Tway Apr 30 '14 at 16:25
  • 9
    @MattThrower But that illustrates that ice is less dense than water, which is why ice is buoyant to begin with... But ice will only displace a volume of water equivalent to the volume of ice that is below the water level... They cancel each other out? – David Wilkins Apr 30 '14 at 17:49
  • 4
    Aha, so they counter balance perfectly? I had no idea. That's the danger of knowing more chemistry than physics :) – Bob Tway May 01 '14 at 07:58
  • 3
    So, does this mean melting polar ice caps shouldn't effect sea levels, those floating on the sea anyhow? – Jodrell May 01 '14 at 08:18
  • 2
    @Jodrell, the case for polar ice caps is different, since the icecap will melt to form fresh water, where as the surrounding ocean water is salty (differing densities). The above analysis only applies if the floating solid melts to form the same liquid initially supplying buoyancy force. – Kenshin May 01 '14 at 08:48
  • 2
    @Jodrell: It's the big sheets of ice sitting on Greenland and Antartica that everyone worries about. –  May 01 '14 at 08:48
  • 1
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-rise-due-to-floating-ice.html – Kenshin May 01 '14 at 08:50
  • Mew, I think your analysis applies whenever something solid floats in a liquid and thus displaces an amount of liquid with mass equal to the floating solid. As the density of the sea reduces with salinity, and the meting ice is less saline than the sea, the meting would actually decrease bouancy and result in an extra rise. However, as @Hurkyl states I guess that would be minor compared to other water from ice that currently sits on land. – Jodrell May 01 '14 at 09:02
  • 1
    @Jodrell Antarctica for example is an entire continent covered with ice several km thick. If all the ice in Antarctica melted then that alone is estimated that it would raise see level by 60m+ worldwide (estimates vary). http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm – Tim B May 01 '14 at 11:57
  • 1
    Actually we're asssuming in these answers that the ice was floating in the water, which wasn't in the original question. Much Antarctic ice is sitting on land, so when it melts it adds to the ocean water and raises it. Or in the glass if the ice were held submerged (say, under a strainer) the water volume would subside a bit. – prototype May 01 '14 at 21:25
  • @mew Really that is you answer? Add a liter of unsalted water to a liter of salted water I have two liter of water with half the salt density. – paparazzo Jul 28 '15 at 01:10
  • Ice cubes actually contain some air that was trapped during the freezing process. This air contributes some mass to the ice, but does not contribute mass to the water once the ice has melted (since the air escapes into the atmosphere). So perhaps the water level would lower slightly in accordance with the mass of trapped air. – M.M Oct 10 '16 at 13:00
  • why complex thinking, ice has only less water than it looks, so you wont see water increment of your life period. After 500 years some changes will be happen in sea – Anand Thangappan Feb 02 '17 at 08:21
  • Yes, do we have to take into account any oxygen trapped in the ice? – user197994 Jul 10 '19 at 18:54
  • 1
    @PM2Ring the density of ICE is not considered here. That p in the first equation is the density of the fluid the ice is submerged in (which is just water). And later when the ice cube melts, again, we're considering the density of the liquid water which is just p again. – S H Dec 19 '19 at 11:26
  • @ Kenshin Does this mean that if any solid melts over any liquid both of same material the level won't change because the answer doesn't focuses on any property of water or ice ,it generalizes every solid and liquid material.? Why then at elementary schools we are taught that this happens due to anomalous expansion of water? – Guji2203 Dec 30 '20 at 08:16
  • @ Kenshin why have you taken the area of cross section in two cases to be equal, when ice is floating the cross about which water displaces is A(beaker)—A(ice block). Whilst it's just A(beaker) in the 2nd case. The area of cross section is different so the proof won't work. Can you clarify on this. – Guji2203 Dec 30 '20 at 09:37
  • @Guji2203 if you submerge volume V into a glass of water, the water will rise by V/A where A is the area of the glass regardless of what the cross-section area is for the submerged item. – Kenshin Jan 01 '21 at 09:20
  • @Kenshin , if we push a mug into a bucket filled with water , the water displaced comes out from the sides of the mug and distributes itself over the surface outside the mug so how can we include the area of mug? For an object which completely submerges in liquid i have understood your area argument but can't understand in partially immersed case. Also can you clarify on your answer which generalizes it to solid liquid pair of any material., Is it true for every material. Also can you clarify Why then at elementary schools we are taught that this happens due to anomalous expansion of water? – Guji2203 Jan 01 '21 at 13:08
  • 1
    @Guji2203 the completely submerged case and partially submerged case are the same. The water doesn't know the object is completely or partially submerged it only knows that some volume V is submerged. I think your mistake is that you are imagining the object being partially submerged and then the water subsequently rising up further, but instead you need to realise the water has already risen and in its final state, and it is in that final state where a volume V is submerged. Draw a diagram of the final state of a submerged vs partially submerged case side by side and you see they are same. – Kenshin Jan 02 '21 at 10:07
  • 1
    If in the final state, a volume V is submerged, then the final volume of the cup should be the initial volume of water V_i plus the submerged volume V. Any volume above the water level doesn't matter, but below the water level we have a final volume of V + V_i. If A is the surface area of the cup, then the final height is (V+V_i)/A. The inital height was V/A. The change in height is thus V_i/A, and is independent of the shape of the submerged object. – Kenshin Jan 02 '21 at 10:13
  • Ok, i understood this part thanks , can you clarify on this part that does this phenomenon of level of liquid remaining same happens to every solid liquid pair of Same material,as your answer generalizes it, but some books mention anamolous expansion of water as a reason.Also when ice melts it would contract while water would lose heat and expand (calorimetry). thanks – Guji2203 Jan 02 '21 at 10:39
  • I have understood your answer, great answer , can you clarify on more thing about the thermal aspect as many reckon this phenomenon happens due to anomalous expansion of water thank you – Guji2203 Jan 03 '21 at 07:37
  • Kenshin I have still not understood why A in both cases are the same. Could you draw the diagram or at least give a more detailed explanation – ACRafi Feb 04 '22 at 18:27
  • How does this answer take into account that the densities of water and ice are different? – Jon Jul 09 '23 at 18:11
58

Here is an explanation that needs no explicit equations.

Consider the following diagram, in which part1 and part2 represent the ice.

The displaced water volume equals part2 volume and has as much mass as (part1+part2)

Now look at what happens when both part1 and part2 melt:

  1. their mass does not change, it is (part1+part2)
  2. it becomes water.

And we just said that part1+part2 mass water has part2 volume.

enter image description here

  • 1
    You mention "The displaced water volume equals part2 volume and has as much mass as (part1+part2)". Why does the displaced water, which has part2's volume, have as much mass as part1 + part2? The black line that separates part1 from part2 seems to be arbitrarily drawn. – Peter Majeed May 02 '14 at 14:09
  • 5
    The line is not arbitrary, part2 is immersed, and therefore it is the part directly responsible for displacing the water. – kalkanistovinko May 02 '14 at 14:35
  • 1
    Yeah, I think I get that part. But why is the mass of the displaced water equal to the mass of part1 + part2? That water's volume is definitely the volume of part2, but I'm not intuiting why it's equal to the mass of both parts. – Peter Majeed May 02 '14 at 14:44
  • 10
    That is Archimedes' principle in application. Keep in mind that the ice density is less than that of water, therefore, a lesser amount of water is required to balance the whole ice body. – kalkanistovinko May 02 '14 at 15:21
  • Right - I suppose my problem is that while I understand that principle formulaically, the part of it that relates to mass isn't as intuitive by glancing at the diagram. I kinda have to assume that principle is in effect before accepting the diagram as it is. – Peter Majeed May 02 '14 at 16:07
  • Well, I am uncertain about what you want. Are you asking for an intuitive reasoning of the principle? – kalkanistovinko May 02 '14 at 16:24
  • 2
    The whole ice block has to be balanced, so the upwards force (gravity times density of water times volume of ice) must equal downward force, which is gravity times mass of ice. Canceling gravity, we get (mass of water that part 2 occupies) = (total mass of block). – Faraz Masroor Jul 28 '15 at 01:53
  • "Here is an explanation that needs no explicit equations." Although I agree that a simple answer with as few equations as possible is required, I think this answer at the very least should include the equation "total weight of ice = weight of displaced water", which is necessary to justify the end result "volume after melting = volume of part 2" – Stef Aug 10 '21 at 13:30
2

Brandon, above, gets right to the point. Frozen water displaces its own mass in the rest of the water, which means in effect it displaces an amount equal to itself. While frozen it is larger in volume, and thus less dense, because of hydrogen bonding -- that's why it floats -- and when it melts it returns to the liquid state (surprise!) at essentially the same density as the surrounding water. A given quantity of water, temporarily larger in volume but correspondingly less dense because it has frozen, returning to the liquid state will thus not raise the overall level of water (assuming here no evaporation, mosquitoes stopping in to have a sip, etc etc) --

1

Consider an ice cube of 10cm, assume that the density of water and ice is 10:9. At first, the ice has 9 cm in the water, when it melts, it becomes water with the volume 10*10*9. Just fills the melted ice original in the water.

1

The displacement answers of mew and kal are spot on.

This is about the chemistry of the displacement.

Water is the only substance with solid density less than the liquid. (For the record there is one other, namely the element Gallium).

As you cool a liquid and it settles in and get more dense. As it settles to solid it typically just settles in more.

Water is very a interesting molecule in that it is very stable and still polar. Two hydrogen and one oxygen in a triangle. The oxygen is slightly negative and the hydrogen positive. When they settle into a solid they form a lattice that is less dense than the liquid state. Water has a maximum density as 4 Celsius.

If ice was more dense than water we would be on a much much different earth. We would probably not be on this earth.

paparazzo
  • 1,235
1

I've seen this question some years ago. Note that the water level doesn't change as the ice melts ONLY if the ice is melting in pure water. If you melt ice cubes in salt water, the water level will increase as the ice melts.

David White
  • 12,158
1

Another non-math way to look at it.

  1. The water level in a container is going to be determined by:
  • the volume of water already in the container, which we can assume to be constant, plus

  • how much water's displaced by anything we float in it, or any extra water we add to it (the displaced volume). If we can show that stays constant as ice turns to meltwater, then the water level must be constant.

  1. Freezing and melting water doesn't make it gain or lose any extra atoms or other mass. Melting 1kg of ice results in 1kg of water. Only the volume changes.

  2. The volume of water displaced by a buoyant object depends only on the mass of the object, not on its volume or density.

  3. Since freezing doesn't change the mass, it doesn't change the volume of displaced water, so the water level doesn't change.

  • "The volume of water displaced by a buoyant object depends only on the mass of the object, not on its volume or density."

    This is the point that would need math however. This is far from trivially obvious

    – Cruncher Dec 05 '22 at 14:55
  • @Cruncher I think I'd expect Archimedes' "principle of flotation" to be intuitively obvious, or at least my own understanding of it doesn't seem to have needed math to arrive at. What am I missing? But given that you don't consider it obvious, and you do consider it a math problem, it suggests I've missed something important. What'm I missing? – Dewi Morgan Dec 05 '22 at 23:32
  • Love this answer for a general public, thanks. – Ruth Lazkoz Sep 15 '23 at 18:29
0

While the two existing answers offer some good science, on why the water level does not change, they are both slightly over optimistic. While the level will not rise, it will not remain the same either. Evaporation will occur simultaneously with melting, and the water level in the glass will actually lower slightly.

Even if the ice remains frozen the process of Sublimation will allow the ice to evaporate. You have may seen this occur in your freezer, or with snow on your porch

  • 2
    You are neglecting possible condensation of water vapor from the air on the ice, which would have the opposite effect. – Oldcat Apr 30 '14 at 22:03
  • @Oldcat, There are several variables, container design, humidity, air temp & water temp. Evaporation occurs with all the variables, I was assuming the condensation would occur in about half the scenarios, so left it out for simplicity. You are welcome to add it in to my answer if you believe I was mistaken on the ratio of condensation scenarios. – James Jenkins May 01 '14 at 10:32
  • 2
    Evaporation? That is weak. Clearly the intent of the question is to ignore evaporation. – paparazzo Jul 28 '15 at 01:20
  • 2
    @Oldcat And the intent of the question is clearly to ignore condensation. – paparazzo Jul 28 '15 at 01:24
-3

It does, it lowers it. Frozen water takes up more space that liquid water (you'll notice it floats -that is because there is less mass per volume). As it melts it takes less space per area thus the water level goes down.

asdf
  • 1
  • 1
    You're forgetting that the mass of the ice is the same mass as the water that froze to make it. Floating objects only displace their mass worth of fluid. – Brandon Enright Apr 30 '14 at 23:29