Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-92wsb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T14:03:40.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Microstructural change in ice: II. Creep behavior under triaxial stress conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

I. L. Meglis
Affiliation:
Ocean Engineering Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3X5, Canada
P. M. Melanson
Affiliation:
Ocean Engineering Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3X5, Canada
I.J. Jordaan
Affiliation:
Ocean Engineering Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3X5, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This work investigates the deformation of ice under deviatoric stresses and confining pressures expected during ice–structure interaction. Granular ice was tested under a range of confining pressures (5–60 MPa) and deviatoric stresses (up to 25 MPa), with sample temperatures between –8° and –10°C. Samples were deformed to increasing end-levels of axial strain, and were thin-sectioned and photographed immediately following testing.

At all confinement levels, the original texture of the sample is completely transformed within the first 10–15% strain, to a fine-grained matrix with a few larger, isolated grains. At low confinements, grain-size reduction is associated with extensive microcracking. At high confinements, few cracks are observed. Observations suggest that microcracking, melting and recrystallization are active at all levels of confinement, though the relative importance of each depends on the confinement, stress and accumulated strain.

Deviatoric stress is a strong factor in controlling the creep, reflected in both the time required for the sample to reach accelerated creep and the tertiary creep rate itself. Two exceptions to this pattern were noted. First, some samples experienced strain localization and eventual rupture. These specimens tended to have higher creep rates even in the initial stages of strain. Second, prior damage resulted in rapid softening compared with the behavior of undamaged specimens. However, when strain rates are compared among all samples at a given level of cumulative axial strain, the creep behavior obeys a power law over the whole range of strain levels tested. Effective viscosity decreased from 107.8 to l06.4 MPan s within the first 10% strain, during which the most substantial microstructural changes occurred, and then stayed relatively stable. The stress exponent, n, remained within the range 4.0–4.6.

The dominant deformation mechanism appears to depend strongly on confining pressure (cracking at low pressure and dynamic recrystallization at high pressure). Creep rates at high confinement appear to increase relative to those at intermediate confinement, but the influence of temperature must be addressed further.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1999
Figure 0

Table 1. The maximum axial strain (in % true strain) for each lest specimen, with the confining pressure (Pc) and deviatoric stress (s) during the creep phase of the test

Figure 1

Table 2. Eight specimens were subjected to a damage step at the constant strain rate given, under confinement of 20 MPa. Following this step, a deviatoric stress (s) was applied with confining pressure (Pc), and the sample was allowed to creep to the maximum axial strain shown. These tests are noted with “d” in the plots

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Example of the corrected deviatoric stress, confining pressure and strain curves from a typical creep test.

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Axial true strain as a function of time (a), and strain rate as a function of total cumulative axial strain (b), plotted for four tests done with a confinement Pc = 20 MPa and deviatoric stresses as shown. Sample subjected to prior damage is noted.

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Axial true strain (a) and strain rate (b) plotted for four tests done at a hydrostatic stress p = 55 MPa and deviatoric stresses as shown. Curve marked with * asterisk is from a sample which ruptured.

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Axial true strain (a) and strain rate (b) plotted for six tests done at a deviatoric stress s =15 MPa with confinement Pc = 5 MPa.

Figure 6

Fig. 5. Axial true strain (a) and strain rate (b) plotted for 11 tests done at a deviatoric stress s =15 MPa with confinement Pc = 50 MPa. Curves marked with asterisk are from samples which ruptured. Curves marked “lg” and “fg” are from initially large- and fine-grained samples; for the curve marked “18% d” the pressure was increased from 5 MPa to 50 MPa after an initial 18% axial strain.

Figure 7

Fig. 6. Axial true strain (a) and strain rate (b) plotted for six tests done at deviatoric stress s = 15 MPa with confinement between Pc = 15 MPa and 60 MPa. Curves marked with an asterisk are from samples which ruptured. Curves marked with a tilde show hard contact with ram during initial application of creep load.

Figure 8

Fig. 7. Axial true strain (a) and strain rate (b) plotted for four tests done using high deviatoric stress s = 20–25 MPa. Curve marked “4% d” is for the sample subjected to a damage step prior to creep loading.

Figure 9

Fig. 8. Axial true strain (a) and strain rate (b) plotted for six tests which were subjected to a prior damage step of 12% axial strain at constant strain rates as given. These creep tests were done at a deviatoric stress s = 15 MPa with Pc = 15, 30 or 50 MPa.

Figure 10

Fig. 9. Axial strain rate vs the corrected deviatoric stress plotted for all tests. Strain rate was determined at five levels of axial strain.

Figure 11

Fig. 10. Time to accelerated creep vs the initial (i.e. uncorrected) deviatoric stress for all tests. Linear regression was done only with data marked by filled symbols; these are distinguished at 15 MPa for low and high confining-pressure tests. Open circles are samples subjected to a prior damage step. Open diamond reflects a lower bound, as discussed in the text.

Figure 12

Fig. 11. Schematic representation of macroscopic shape of deformed samples following testing. Most samples deformed relatively uniformly (a). Samples which ruptured typically showed a combination of lateral strain and faulting (b). 1n two cases, samples failed rapidly without significant lateral strain (c).

Figure 13

Table 3. Effective viscosity (v), stress exponent (n) and correlation coefficient (r2) derived from the strain rate and corrected deviatoric-stress data at selected levels of cumulative axial strain

Figure 14

Fig. 12. Plot of average grain diameter as a function of the total cumulative axial strain (in % true strain).