Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-r8qmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T15:05:27.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of sample size, centrifugal acceleration and brine inclusions on the elastic modulus of sea ice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Michael Lau
Affiliation:
Institute for Ocean Technology, National Research Council of Canada, PO Box 12093, St John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3T5, Canada E-mail: Michael.Lau@nrc.ca
Stephen J. Jones
Affiliation:
Institute for Ocean Technology, National Research Council of Canada, PO Box 12093, St John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3T5, Canada E-mail: Michael.Lau@nrc.ca
Ryan Phillips
Affiliation:
C-CORE, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3X5, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present a re-analysis of the results obtained from a series of measurements on freshwater and saline ice beams under various centrifugal accelerations. The data show a strong influence of beam size, brine volume and centrifugal acceleration on the elastic modulus of ice. The data suggest a transition brine volume at around 9%, which might occur close to the melting point, at which the elastic modulus of ice drops rapidly due to a possible change of brine-pocket structure. Furthermore, for brine volumes less than 9%, there is a negligible increase in the elastic modulus measured under high centrifugal acceleration, but for brine volumes more than 9% the increase is considerable, approaching that measured with freshwater ice. This may be due to necking of brine drainage channels just above the ice/water interface at high centrifugal acceleration. A model of sea ice was constructed based on existing theories of brine inclusions in sea ice, which satisfactorily predicts the observed trends.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2008
Figure 0

Table 1. Summary of test data on saline ice reported by Barrette and others (1999)

Figure 1

Table 1. continued.

Figure 2

Table 2. Summary of test data on freshwater ice reported by Barrette and others (1997, 1998a)

Figure 3

Fig. 1. Sectional view of test package (Barrette and others, 1998a).

Figure 4

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of instrumentation used to perform in situ cantilever beam tests (Barrette and others, 1998a). The brass frame (U-shaped) is indicated.

Figure 5

Fig. 3. E-modulus versus ice thickness, t, for freshwater ice at different simulated accelerations (Barrette and others, 1997, 1998a), along with a regression line through all data.

Figure 6

Fig. 4. E-modulus versus ice thickness, t, for saline ice at 1g and freshwater ice at different accelerations. Data are grouped according to indicated ranges of values of (Barrette and others, 1997, 1998a, 1999). Separate regression lines are shown through the three highest salinity ranges, while one regression line suffices for the two lowest groups and the freshwater ice.

Figure 7

Fig. 5. E-modulus versus , as shown by Barrette and others’ data. E-modulus values have been adjusted to an ice thickness, t = 17.5 mm. There is little effect on E-modulus of , but a rapid reduction of E-modulus with increasing .

Figure 8

Fig. 6. E-modulus versus ice thickness, t, showing little difference in the data for different accelerations (i.e. negligible effect of acceleration on E), for ice with (for actual values see key). The freshwater limit (Equation (1)) is shown as a black line.

Figure 9

Fig. 7. E-modulus versus ice thickness, t, showing the substantial effect of simulated acceleration on E for ice with (for actual values see key on figure). The freshwater limit is shown as a black line.

Figure 10

Fig. 8. Idealized diagram of the composite-beam representation of sea ice for calculating its equivalent modulus of elasticity.

Figure 11

Fig. 9. Non-dimensionalized E-modulus versus , showing a comparison between model prediction (solid diamonds and curve) and experimental data (open circles, from Barrette and others, 1999) at 1g. The E-modulus, Eeq, at vb is non-dimensionalized by the E-modulus, Eo, at vb = 0.

Figure 12

Fig. 10. Non-dimensionalized neck radius versus centrifugal acceleration scale factor, n, showing the decrease of neck radius with increasing simulated acceleration. The neck radius, d, at ng is nondimensionalized by neck radius, d0, at 1g.

Figure 13

Fig. 11. Non-dimensionalized E-modulus versus , showing the influence of drainage-channel enclosure. The lower (solid) curve was computed assuming drainage-channel enclosure at . The upper (dashed) curve (limit) is computed assuming the drainage channel was enclosed, i.e. the curve shows the upper limit that can be reached due to drainage-channel enclosure. The E-modulus, Eeq, at vb is non-dimensionalized by the E-modulus, Eo, at vb = 0.