Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-zlvph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T16:30:57.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Crack propagation and fracture resistance in saline ice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Samuel J. DeFranco
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York 13699-5710, U.S.A.
John P. Dempsey
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York 13699-5710, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crack propagation in saline ice (a model sea ice) is investigated in this study in an attempt to understand the processes of crack growth at one loading rate and two temperatures. As has been previously observed in cold sea ice and warm or cold fresh-water ice, crack growth occurs in initiation/arrest increments. The energetic stability criteria of crack growth are examined in saline ice and crack growth is characterized in terms of the fracture-resistance parameter KR . This paper offers the development of a new fracture geometry capable of sustained stable crack growth and the presentation of fracture-resistance curves for saline ice at −25° and −15 C. The important findings of this paper are that: (i) in warm saline ice, extensive local crack-tip damage is accompanied by a limited amount of slow, stable crack extension; (n) fracture in cold saline ice is characterized by locally negative KR behavior; and (iii) fracture in cold or warm saline ice is characterized by globally positive KR curve behavior.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1994
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Fracture behavior using positive vs negative geometry with a positive R-curve material:(a) positive G; (b) negative G.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Fracture behavior using positive vs negative geometry with a negative R-curve material: (a) positive G; (b) insufficiently negative G; (c) sufficiently negative G.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Geometric stability factor (GSF) for Sammis and Ashby (1986) compression-failure model.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. The reverse lapered-crack-line wedge load (RT-CLWL) fracture geometry.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Wedge-loading apparatus and set-up.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. RT-CLWL specimen ready for testing.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Schematic of device used for friction analysis.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. RT-CLWL compliance curve for PMMA.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Energetic stability comparison double torsion (DT), double-cantilever beam (DCB) and RT-CLWL in a rigid testing frame. Dashed line shows the effects of machine compliance on stability.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. P vs δ2 at −25° C.

Figure 10

Fig. 11. KR vs Δa/L for saline ice at −25°C.

Figure 11

Table 1. Fracture-resistance test data

Figure 12

Fig. 12. P vs δ2 at −15° C.

Figure 13

Fig. 13. KR vs Δa for RT9.

Figure 14

Fig. 14. Crack-tip region in specimen RT9 at 62 times magnification.

Figure 15

Fig. 15. Crack-tip region in specimen RT9 at 5 times magnification (scale gradations are 1 mm).