Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-vgfm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T00:14:52.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the physical basis for the creep of ice: the high temperature regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

D.M. Cole*
Affiliation:
ERDC-CRREL (Ret.), 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH03755, USA
*
Author for correspondence: D.M. Cole, E-mail: david.mcg.cole@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This work quantifies the increased temperature sensitivity of the constitutive behavior of ice with proximity to the melting point in terms of dislocation mechanics. An analysis of quasistatic and dynamic cyclic loading data for several ice types leads to the conclusion that high temperature (e.g. T ≥ −8°C) behavior is the result of a thermally induced increase in the number of mobile dislocations rather than an increase in the activation energy of dislocation glide or the introduction of a new deformation mechanism. The relationship between dislocation density and temperature is quantified and the model is shown to adequately represent the published minimum creep rate vs stress data for isotropic granular freshwater ice for −48 ≤ T ≤ −0.01°C.

Information

Type
Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Illustration of the effects of dislocation density and activation energy on the loss compliance. (a) Activation energy and dislocation density are constant for all temperatures. (b) Dislocation density increases by 20% for each temperature increase and activation energy is constant. (c) Dislocation density is constant and activation energy increases by a factor of 2 for each temperature increase. Loss compliance is given in arbitrary units (a.u.) for the purposes of demonstration.

Figure 1

Table 1. Specimens employed in the analysis

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Loss compliance vs frequency for temperatures and ice types as indicated. All data (points) were obtained using the uniaxial, zero-mean-stress cyclic loading method and the lines were generated by the model as discussed in the text. (a) Single crystal of freshwater ice, (b) laboratory-prepared granular freshwater ice and (c) a core of first-year sea ice. The sea-ice core had a preferred c-axis direction and was oriented to maximize the basal plane shear stress.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Examples of the frequency shift analysis conducted on (a) an oriented single crystal of freshwater ice, (b) a sea-ice core shifted to be coincident at 10−1 Hz and −10°C and (c) data as in (b) but shifted to be coincident at 10−2 Hz and −10°C.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Dislocation density factor determined from the cyclic loading response of freshwater and sea-ice specimens.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Results of the dynamic experiments reported by Hiki and Tamura (1983). (a) Values of dislocation density vs temperature from two specimens with dissimilar initial dislocation densities, digitized from their Figure 9 and (b) digitized values of attenuation vs temperature for three warming/cooling cycles conducted on a single specimen, from their Figure 2.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Dislocation density factor vs temperature employing quasistatic cyclic loading and dynamic experimental results as indicated. This relationship has been quantified as three piece-wise linear segments for reasons discussed in the text.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Normalized minimum creep rates at high temperatures from sources as indicated. Values have been normalized to the creep rate observed at T = −5°C or somewhat lower in the case of Mellor and Testa (1969).

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Determination of dislocation density factor from creep and dynamic attenuation data. (a) Illustration of the method used to determine the dislocation density factor from minimum creep rate data. (b) Dislocation density factor inferred from the minimum creep rate data of Morgan (1991).

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Minimum creep rate vs stress for experiments conducted at −0.01 and −0.02°C from sources as indicated.

Figure 10

Fig. 10. Minimum creep rate vs stress from Glen (1955) plotted with the model values.

Figure 11

Fig. 11. Minimum creep rate vs stress from Steinemann (1958) with calculations from the present dislocation-based model.

Figure 12

Fig. 12. Minimum creep rate vs stress from Barnes and others (1971) along with results from Glen (1955) for T = −0.02°C and Colbeck and Evans (1973) for T = −0.01°C.

Figure 13

Fig. A1. Cyclic loading response after several stages of deformation under a compressive creep stress of 2.45 MPa. Total strain increments were 0.00255, 0.00419, 0.0479 and 0.0043.

Figure 14

Fig. A2. Calculated dislocation density vs accumulated creep strain for four specimens subjected to the staged creep experiments described in the text.

Figure 15

Table A1. Fixed model parameters

Figure 16

Table A2. Model variables

Figure 17

Table A3. Values of ρ0 for various creep datasets from the literature