P266001coll1 6095
P266001coll1 6095
P266001coll1 6095
Ice Strength as a
Function of Hydrostatic
Pressure and Temperature
A n a to ly M, Fish a n d Yuri K, Zaretsky O c to b e r 1997
Tj = y j 2
Cover: Strength envelopes of ice at various temperatures: c, <|), f f , and T are the ice cohesion, friction angle, ice
melting pressure, and absolute temperature, respectively.
All others may order reports through the National Technical Information Service:
NTIS
5285 PORT ROYAL RD
SPRINGFIELD VA 22161
Telephone 1 703 487 4650
1 703 487 46 3 9 (TDD for the hearing-impaired)
E-mail [email protected]
WWW http://www.fedworld.gov/ntis/ntishome.html
For information on all aspects of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, visit our World Wide Web site-
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DENVER LIBRARY
92049753
Ice Strength as a
Function of Hydrostatic
Pressure and Temperature
A n a to ly M. Fish a n d Yuri K. Zaretsky O c to b e r 1997
DATE DUE
Prepared for
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
This report was prepared by Dr. Anatoly M. Fish, Research Civil Engineer, of
the Civil Engineering Research Division, Research and Engineering Directorate,
U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory; and Dr. Yuri K.
Zaretsky, Director, Institute of Geomechanics and Hydrostructures, Moscow,
Russia. Funding of this research was provided by DA Project 4A762784AT42, Cold
Regions Engineering Technology, Work Package 201, Conventional Facilities in Cold
Regions, Work Unit CA-D13, Geotechnical Structures in Cold Regions.
The authors extend their appreciation to Dr. Devinder Sodhi, Dr. Patrick Black,
and Dr. Stephen Ketcham of CRREL for technical review of this report and their
valuable comments.
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising or promotional
purposes. Citation of brand names does not constitute an official endorsement or
approval of the use of such commercial products.
n
CONTENTS
Page
Preface........................ ii
Nomenclature....................................................................................................... iv
Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
Strain rate effect................................................................................................... 3
Effect of hydrostatic pressure............................................................................ 4
Temperature effect............................................................................................... 5
Ice melting pressure....................................................................................... 5
Ice cohesion..................................................................................................... 5
Angle of internal friction............................................................................... 6
Temperature criteria of ice strength................................................................ 6
Test data ........................................... 7
Parameter evaluation.......................................................................................... 8
Ice cohesion........................................................................... 9
Angle of internal friction.................................................................................... 10
Strength predictions.............. 11
Summary and conclusions................................................................................. 13
Literature cited..................................................................................................... 13
Abstract ............................................................................................................... 15
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
1. Strength envelopes of ice at various temperatures........................... 2
2. Temperature diagrams of the strength parametersof ice ................. 6
3 Strength test data of ice under triaxial compression........................ 7
4. Temperature dependencies of the strength parameters of ic e ........ 8
5. Determination of parameters cQand a ................... 9
6. Determination of parameters bQand (3............................................... 9
7. Angle of internal friction of ice as a function of temperature......... 10
8. Strength of ice as a function of temperature and confining
pressure................................................................................................ 11
9. Predicted and test magnitudes of ice strength under triaxial
compression at various temperatures............................................ 12
10. Strength of ice in the range of high hydrostatic pressures at
e = 5 x 10-3 s“1....................................................................................... 12
TABLES
Table
1. Strength parameters of ice at various temperatures......................... 8
2. Strength predictions of Labrador iceberg ice..................................... 11
iii
NOMENCLATURE
IV
Ice Strength as a Function of
Hydrostatic Pressure and Temperature
A N A TO LY M . FISH A N D Y U R I K. Z A R E T S K Y
Ih
p = ~ , Hydrostatic Pressure
O
Figure 1. Strength envelopes of ice at various temperatures: c, <|>,p*, and T are the ice cohesion,
friction angle, ice melting pressure, and absolute temperature, respectively.
2
proportional to temperature. It has been shown the hydrostatic pressure is, the greater the viscos
that the hydrostatic pressure being applied to ice ity coefficient, the lower the strain rate of ice, and
decreases its melting temperature and thus its the higher the ice strength will be. For p > omax the
strength under triaxial compression. higher the hydrostatic pressure is, the smaller the
In the present report a different approach has viscosity coefficient, the higher the strain rate,
been undertaken. The authors considered the ice and the lower the ice strength will be. This is
strength as a function of two variables: the hydro confirmed well by test data (Jones 1982, Jones and
static pressure and temperature, i.e., Chew 1983).
Equation 2 can be rewritten in terms of maxi
Ti = Ti { P ' T ) ; Yi = Const. (Id) mum (peak) shear strength t - = and presented
as a product of two independent functions: a yield
At a constant strain rate the strength of ice in a
function Tio(p) and a nondimensional function
multiaxial stress state is described by the para
<D(Ÿi) of the constant strain rate
bolic yield criterion with three parameters: the
cohesion, and the friction angle, which are differ
*i(p>Yi) = 'tio(p)<I>(yi) • (2a)
ent nonlinear functions of temperature, and the
ice melting pressure. Then a strength criterion of
Function <J>(Ÿj) has been selected in its simplest
ice, which takes into account the combined effect form:
of all three variables in eq 1, the strain rate, hy
drostatic pressure and temperature, is obtained
by combining eq lb and Id.
fi.,11^0t W» Yi
\l/n
®(Ÿi): (3 )
v no y ioy
where ÿj = applied octahedral constant shear
STRAIN RATE EFFECT strain rate
Yio = Yio / ¿o = instantaneous (referenced)
A constitutive equation for steady-state creep octahedral shear strain rate
of homogeneous and isotropic ice in a multiaxial instantaneous octahedral shear strain
stress state at constant strain rate and constant Yio = C —
n = dimensionless parameter; for poly
temperature takes the following form (Fish 1991, crystalline ice, n ~ 4 (Jones 1982)
1992, 1993): temperature-dependent time to fail
ure, i.e., the time interval between
( \
c *i the initiation of the test conducted at
(2 ) Yi = Yio and the moment when the
to <Tio )
ice strength reaches a maximum
It should be emphasized that eq 2 is fundamentally (peak) value.
different from the Norton-Glen power flow law
(eq lc), although it contains a power function of The temperature dependency of tQ is given by
stress with exponent n.
In contrast to eq lc parameters C and tQin eq 2
have a definite physical meaning, and the denomi
nator of the stress function is a temperature-de
pendent yield criterion (eq 5 below). This yield where E = activation energy
criterion, which is a function of the first invariant R = gas constant
of the stress tensor and temperature, relates the h = Planck's constant
minimum shear strain rate and the shear stress in k - Boltzmann's constant.
the whole spectrum of hydrostatic pressures (mean
normal stresses). In eq 3 the "instantaneous" (referenced) octahe
Equation 2 implies that the nonlinear viscosity dral strain rate Yj0 is defined as a strain rate at
coefficient of ice which the shear strength of ice reaches a maxi
mum value, separating two different modes of
no<p,T) = t0x i / c failure: the brittle mode dominated by the cleavage
mechanism of failure and the ductile mode domi
is a function of the hydrostatic pressure and tem nated by the shear mechanism. At strain rates
perature. For p < omax one can see that the higher ( Yi > Yio) ^ e ice strength either decreases (Gagnon
3
and Gammon 1995) or remains unchanged (Jones 1
1982). Apparently, the magnitude of the instanta Ti = (0i - o 2)2 +( o 2 - o 3)2
neous strain rate depends on the type of ice, its 46
structure and other factors and varies between 1/ 2
4
*io = * i o ( n ^max = ^m axCO' drostatic pressure p* at which the shear resistance
of ice equals zero, i.e.,
^m ax = ^ m a x (^ )/ ^ 2 = ^2(^)*
Tm+Q = Tm~Ap* (13)
Thus, if a series of strength tests of ice is carried
out at a constant strain rate instead of one yield and
curve, one obtains a family of curves for various
temperatures (Fig. 1). It should be emphasized p** = —
-0
(14)
y A
that parameters c, b and xmax are also strain-rate
dependent, while parameters omax, p* and h2 are where 0 = ice temperature (°C) and Tm = 273.1 K
independent of the strain rate (Fish 1992,1993). is the ice melting temperature at the atmospheric
pressure. Note that the ice melting pressure is
unrelated to the grain size or the structure of ice.
TEMPERATURE EFFECT The magnitudes of ice melting pressures p* for
various temperatures are presented in Table 1.
Ice melting pressure
It is well known that the ice melting tempera Ice cohesion
ture, as well as the melting temperature of other The ice cohesion defines the ice strength when
crystalline materials, is a function of the hydro the hydrostatic pressure p = 0. Ice strength is a
static pressure. This pressure can be determined stochastic event, a culmination point of failure of
(Zaretsky and Fish 1996a) from the Clapeyron intermolecular bonds and growth of cracks. A cer
equation, according to which a small change in tain number of these bonds in the unit volume of
the equilibrious melting temperature of a solid ice are formed during freezing of water at tem
ATm attributable to a small change in the hydro perature 0°C. Further temperature decrease brings
static pressure Ap can be calculated from the rela about formation of new bonds, attributable to
tionship freezing of the liquid phase on grain boundaries,
and a sharp increase of the ice strength (cohe
^ V£ - V S J T V£ - V S J sion). Thus, one may conclude that the ice cohe
dTm = g c dp = Tm -S-— §-dp (U)
b£ ~ bs Lm V 7 sion is a function of temperature and consists of a
sum of two components:
whereV£ and Vs = unit mass volume of the ma
terial in the liquid and in the c(T) = c0 + c 1(T) (15)
solid state, respectively
where cQ is the component of the ice cohesion
S£ and Ss = unit mass entropy of the liq
brought about at the time of ice formation at 0°C
uid and of the solid state, re
and ca(T) is the temperature-dependent compo
spectively
nent of the cohesion brought about by freezing of
Lm = specific heat of melting of the
liquid phase at temperature below 0°C.
unit mass.
Since the physical nature of cQ and cx is the
Since at melting the volume V£ < Vs,dTm < 0, i.e., same, and taking into account that at temperature
T = Tm, c1 = 0, the temperature dependency of
the equilibrious melting temperature of ice Tm
component q can be presented in the form
decreases as well,
Thus, for ice when p = 0, Tm = 273.1 K, Vt - 10“3 where a is a parameter. Combining eq 15 and 16
m3 kg“1, Vs = 1.09 x 10“3 m3 kg“1, Lm = 3.336 x 105
J kg”1, and parameter A for ice at temperature c(T) = c0[l + o ( l - T / T m)]. (17)
0 = 0°C is equal to
Equation 17 establishes a linear dependency of
A = 0.074 K/M Pa. the ice cohesion upon temperature. Test data show
that such a relationship is valid in the domain of
The magnitude of parameter A coincides with relatively low temperatures below -20°C. In the
that calculated by Barnes et al. (1971). It is not range of moderate temperature, this relation
difficult at this point to calculate the critical hy ship becomes nonlinear and somewhat better
5
b(T) = b0 +b1(T) (19)
T = 0 (-273.1°C); b* = b0eV.
described by
The temperature diagram of parameter b(T) is
c(T) = c0e ^ ~ T^ (18) given in Figure 2b. Note that at very low tem
or peratures certain adjustments of eq 15 through 22
c(0) = coeal0l/Tm (18a) will probably be required.
6
23 should be combined with eq 2a through 4. TEST DATA
Then eq 1 can be written as
The validity of the temperature dependencies
*i(p,e,T ) = Tio(p,T)0(e) of the strength parameters of ice presented above
if • \l/n (24) was verified using test data of Gagnon and
^c(T) + b(T)p - - HT) Gammon (1995). The triaxial (g 2 = o3) compres
2 o max(7’) sion tests were carried out using cylindrical speci
mens of Labrador iceberg ice, 9.58 cm in diameter
In the range of the hydrostatic pressures p « and 26 cm long. Mean grain diameter d ~ 8.1 mm.
omax/ eq 24 takes the form The test temperature varied between -1°C and
-16°C. The tests were conducted at constant axial
e ^1/n strain rates between 10“2 and 10“5 s“1. Test data
xl(p,e,T) = [c(T) + b(T)p] (25)
corresponding to the strain rate ¿O~ 5 x l0 -3s-1
were selected in the following analysis to evalu
when p = 0 (pure shear) ate the strength parameters of ice. This strain rate
was defined by the authors of this report as the
^ e• ^1/ n
x •(e, T) = c (e, T) = c (T) instantaneous strain rate because the test strength
(26)
V8oy magnitudes at this rate reached their maximum
Accordingly values. The tests were carried out at four different
confining pressures: 1.38,3.45,6.89 and 13.79 MPa.
f
£
• A1 / n The test data replotted by the authors of this re
b(z,T) = b(T) (25a) port in terms of the shear strength %i = (c^ - o3) / V3
vs. the hydrostatic pressure p = (g i + g 2 + ct3)/3
where parameters c(T) and b(T) are correspond are presented in Figure 3. Note that each point in
ing to the strain rate e = e0. Figure 3 represents the mean of five tests.
If the radial strain rates are taken into account In Figure 3 for comparison tests, data are pre
function O(e) in eq 24, 25 and 26 should be re sented on triaxial compression of freshwater poly
placed by function O(y). crystalline ice obtained by Jones (1982). The ran-
Figure 3. Strength test data of ice under triaxial compression. Data from Gagnon
and Gammon (1995) and Jones (1982).
7
domly oriented laboratory-made ice Table 1. Strength parameters of ice at various temperatures*.
samples were 20 mm in diameter and 60
mm long with mean grain diameter less e°c c (MPa) b ~p (MPa) ^max (MPa) p *(MPa)
than 1 mm. The test data selected for ^0 12.93+ 0.241 14 245.87 43.52 540.54
comparison refer to the axial constant -16 9.43 0.125 7 80.15 14.44 216.22
-11.8 8.14 0.106 6 53.81 10.99 159.46
strain rate è = 5.4 x 10“3 s“1. The test tem
-11 7.91 0.103 6 49.0 10.43 148.65
perature was -11.8 ± 0.9°C. The confin -6 6.63 0.08 4°30' 20.05 7.43 81.08
ing pressure (o? = a 0 varied between ~5 -1 5.56 0.053 3 (4-79)" (5.69)" (36.85)**
and - 85 MPa. 0 5.37++ 0.04++ 2++
In Figure 10 (below), results of triaxial * Data in this table for strain rate e » 5 x 10~
constant strain rate compression tests + Calculated by eq 17.
are presented of freshwater, randomly ** From the best fit of eq 5.
oriented, polycrystalline ice carried out ++ At freezing.
by Rist and Murrell (1994). In these tests
laboratory-made samples of ice were 40 mm in are indeed nonlinear and can be described by eq
diameter and 100 mm long. Mean grain diameter 18a and 22a. The evaluation procedures of pa
was ~ 1.7 mm. The tests were conducted at con rameters that enter these equations are shown in
stant strain rates from 10-2 to 10”5 s-1; the test Figures 5 and 6. It was found that for the Labra
temperatures varied between -20° and -45°C. The dor iceberg ice
data selected for this analysis are referred to as
the axial strain rate, è ~ 10-3 s_1. c0 = 5.37 MPa 0.04
a = 9.61 (3 = 4.69.
PARAMETER EVALUATION
Temperature variations of ice strength in a mul- Using these parameters, we calculated the magni
tiaxial stress state were shown to be defined by tudes of the ice cohesion c(0), the friction param
three temperature-dependent parameters: the ice eter £?(0) and the friction angle <|)(0) by eq 18a and
melting pressure p(T), ice cohesion c(T) and fric 22a (Table 1). The magnitudes of amax(0) and
tion parameter b(T). The magnitudes of
the ice melting pressure p(T) were cal
culated by eq 14 for the test tempera
tures and are included in Table 1. The
magnitudes of p* for 0 = -11.8°C was
found to be in agreement with p* = 123.7
MPa obtained earlier (Fish 1991) from
the analysis of Jones' data and with that
calculated by an empirical equation of
Hallam and Nadreau (1988).
The temperature dependencies of pa
rameters c(0) and b(0) can be determined
based upon the considerations that in
the range of low hydrostatic pressures p
« omax (test pressures in Fig. 3). As a
first approximation, eq 5 can be replaced
by eq 9. Then, the slopes of the straight
lines and their intersects with the ordi
nate axis obtained by a regression analy
sis of the test data define the magni
tudes of friction parameter b(Q) and
cohesion c(0) for corresponding tem
peratures. The results of the analysis are
presented in Figure 4.
One can see in Figure 4 that tempera Figure 4. Temperature dependencies of the strength parameters of
ture dependencies of parameters c and b ice. Data from Gagnon and Gammon (1995) and Jones (1982).
8
al. (1991) reported that for 0 = -10°C and for the
sliding velocity of 10"3 m s-1, pc ~ 0.13. In Table 1
we found that for -10°C, b = 0.098 that is in agree
ment with the test data.
Comparing parameter bQwith the kinetic dry
friction coefficient jiid of ice on ice is particularly
interesting. Since the latter is temperature-depen
dent, the comparison should be made for a low
ice temperature when the effect of the liquid phase
(lubricant) is minimal. Thus, from Casassa et al.
(1991) we find that for 0 = -35°C, pd = 0.019,
which is in correlation with bQ = 0.04 obtained
above. Obviously a more accurate comparison
would require certain adjustments of both pa
rameters to account for the differences in the test
velocities.
Note that a seeming contradiction may arise
when one compares the ice strength values in
Figure 5. Determination o f parameters cQand a . Table 1 with eq 5a. From Table 1 it follows that ice
possesses a certain strength at 0°C. On the other
hand, from a comparison of eq 5a and 14 one
concludes that the shear strength of ice at this
0 4 8 12 16 20 temperature should be zero. Such a contradiction
arises from a peculiar property of ice: ice is formed
and melts at the same temperature, 0°C. This con
tradiction is easily eliminated when one remem
bers that melting of ice (in accordance with eq 5a)
will take place over a certain time.
ICE COHESION
9
sis of ice strength was carried out using test data range between -1° and -16°C. These data were
of Rist and Murrell (1994). This polycrystalline ice extrapolated to calculate the friction angle <|) and
had a grain size of 1.7 mm. The comparison was the ice strength for temperature -40°C (Fig. 7) and
performed for temperature -20°C and the strain compared (see Fig. 10 below) with test data of
rate range between ~10-3 s-1 and ~ 10-5 s-1. The Rist and Murrell (1994) obtained for this tempera
results of the analysis confirmed the above con ture and for the grain size of 1.7 mm.
clusion. At the same time our studies indicate One can see that despite the considerable dif
that the ice cohesion magnitude is strongly de ference (almost five times) in the grain sizes of
pendent on the ice structure. these two types of ice and the difference in the
test temperatures, the predicted angle of internal
friction correlates well with the test data. We find
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION the friction angle magnitudes are unaffected by
variations of the grain size of ice.
From the above studies an important conclu Thus, eq 27 can be used for calculations of
sion can also be made regarding the physical na parameter b(T) in the above equations and for
ture of the angle of internal friction of ice. While prediction of the ice strength over a wide spec
the temperature dependency of the friction pa trum of temperatures between 0° and -40°C. It
rameter b(Q) = tan <j)(0) is nonlinear (Fig. 4), the should be remembered that the ice friction angle
test data from Table 1 plotted in Figure 7 suggest is a function of the strain rate as well. It decreases
that the friction angle is a simplest linear function rapidly with the strain rate decrease. Fish (1991,
of temperature: 1993) showed that at low strain rates ~10'7 s-1 and
below, ice at -10°C can be considered as an ide
<K0) = <|>0 + co I 0 1 (27) ally cohesive ((() = 0) material, the strength of which
is defined by eq 10 and 26. At high temperatures
where <|>0 = 2°50', co = 16.4' degree-1 and 10 I = (Tm the internal friction angle is small and so is its
- T ) is ice temperature (°C). It should be remem effect on the ice strength. However, at low tem
bered that the magnitudes of the parameters in eq peratures or at high strain rates and high confin
27 refer to a strain rate e - 10-3 s-1. ing pressures, the effect of the internal friction
Note that the magnitudes of the internal fric angle on the strength of ice can be considerable.
tion angles in Table 1 and Figure 7 were calcu Since parameters c, b and p* were found to be
lated based mainly upon test data on the Labra unaffected by variations of the grain size. Table 1
dor iceberg ice (d = 8.1 mm) at the temperature data can be used to predict strength of various
10
types of iceberg ice and freshwater randomly ori- Table 2. Strength predictions of Labrador iceberg ice.
ented polycrystalline ice in a multiaxial stress state.
Confining Strain
6 pressure rate £ O', - (MPa)
(°C) (MPa) _____(s '1) Measured Predicted Ice type
STRENGTH PREDICTIONS
-l l 1.38 4.82 10"5 3.50 4.36 Labrador ice
-11 6.89 5.96 10“5 4.75 4.93 Labrador ice
Let us verify the accuracy of strength predic
tion by comparing the computed and the test re
sults of ice strength as functions of temperature,
strain rate and hydrostatic pressure. 1I n
ii
Figure 9. Predicted and test magnitudes of ice strength under triaxial compres
sion at various temperatures. Data from Gagnon and Gammon (1995), and Jones
(1982).
12
eral trend of predicted values of ice strength as Fish, A.M. (1992) Three-dimensional visco-plastic
functions of the hydrostatic pressure is well con flow model of polycrystalline ice. In Proceed
firmed by Jones' test data. ings, 3rd International Conference on Ice Technol
ogy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam
bridge, Massachusetts, 11-13 August (T.K.S. Murphy,
SUMMARY AND CO NCLUSIONS W.M. Sackinger, and P. Wadhams, Eds.) South
ampton, U.K.: Com putational Mechanics Pubi.,
1. A temperature model has been developed p. 193-207.
that describes the ice strength in a multiaxial stress Fish, A.M. (1993) Combined creep and yield model
state over a wide spectrum of negative (subfreez of ice under multiaxial stress. Journal of Offshore
ing) temperatures. and Polar Engineering, 12(3): 130-139.
2. The strength dependency of ice on the hy Gagnon, R.E., and P.H. Gammon (1995) Triaxial
drostatic pressure and temperature is well de experiments on iceberg and glacier ice. Journal of
scribed by eq 5a, which is a parabolic yield crite Glaciology, 41(139): 538-540.
rion: Hallam, S., and J.P. Nadreau (1988) Failure maps
for ice. In Proceedings, 9th International Conference
tio (p,T) = (c + bp)-(c + bp*) (5a) on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Condi
tions (POAC '87) 17-22 August, Fairbanks, Alaska
with only three fundamental physically well- (W.M. Sackinger, and M.O. Jeffries, Eds.) Geophysi
founded parameters: the ice cohesion c(T), angle cal Institute of Alaska-Fairbanks, voi. 3, p. 45-55.
of internal friction §(T) or b(T), and ice melting Hausler, F.U. (1983) Comparison between differ
pressure p*(T). They all have a definite physical ent yield functions for saline ice. Annals of Glaciol
meaning and are functions of temperature. ogy, 4:105-109.
3. The temperature m odel was developed Jones, D.E., F.E. Kennedy, and E.M. Schulson
based upon data on over 100 triaxial compression (1991) The kinetic friction of saline ice against
tests of iceberg ice and laboratory-made fresh itself at low sliding velocities. Annals of Glaciology,
water randomly oriented polycrystalline ice with 15: 242-246.
a grain diameter between - 1 mm and - 8 mm in the Jones, S.J. (1978) Triaxial testing of polycrystal
temperature range between -1° and -40°C at the line ice. In Proceedings, 3rd International Conference
range of strain rates between 10-3 s-1 and 10“5 s“1. on Permafrost, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, voi. 1,
4. Further studies are required of the tempera p. 670-674.
ture dependencies of the ice strength parameters Jon es, S.J. (1982) The confined com pressive
for various types of ice, particularly the ice melt strength of poly crystalline ice. Journal of Glaciol
ing pressure over a wider spectrum of tempera ogy, 28(98): 171-177.
tures, strain rates, and confining pressures. Jones, S.J., and H.A.M. Chew (1983) Creep of ice
as a function of hydrostatic pressure. Journal of
Physical Chemistry, 87(21): 4064-4066.
LITERATURE CITED Nadreau, J.P., and B. Michel (1986) Yield and
failure envelope for ice under multiaxial com
Barnes, RD., F.R.S. Tabor, and J.C.F. Walker (1971) pressive stresses. Cold Regions Science and Technol
The friction and creep of polycrystalline ice. ogy, 12(1): 75-82.
Proceedings, Royal Society of London, Ser. A. 347: Nadreau, J.P., A.M. Nawwar, and Y.S. Wang (1991)
493-512. Triaxial testing of freshwater ice at low confining
Casassa, C., H. Narita, and N. Maeno (1991) Shear pressures. Transactions of ASME, 113: 260-265.
cell experiments of snow and ice friction. Journal Reinicke, K.M., and T.D. Ralston (1977) Plastic
of Applied Physics, 69(6): 3745-3756. limit analysis with an anisotropic, parabolic yield
Drucker, D.C., and W. Prager (1952) Soil mechan function. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
ics and plastic analysis of limit design. Quarterly and Mining Sciences, 14(3): 147-154.
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 10:157-165. Richter-Menge, J.A., G.F.N. Cox, N. Perron, G.
Fish, A.M. (1991) Creep and yield model of ice Durell, and H.W. Bosworth (1986) Triaxial test
under combined stress. USA Cold Regions Re ing of first-year sea ice. USA Cold Regions Re
search and Engineering Laboratory, Special Re search and Engineering Laboratory, CRREL Re
port 91-31. port 86-16.
13
Rist, M.A., and S.A.F. Murrell (1994) Ice triaxial Weiss, J., and E.M. Schulson (1995) The failure
deformation and fracture. Journal of Glaciology, of freshwater granular ice under compressive
40(135): 305-318. loading. Acta Metallurgica Material, 43(6): 2303-
Sayles, F.H. (1974) Triaxial constant strain rate 2315.
tests and triaxial creep tests on frozen Ottawa Zaretsky, Yu.K., and A.M. Fish (1996a) Model
sand. USA Cold Regions Research and Engi of viscoplastic deformation of frozen and un
neering Laboratory, Technical Report 23. frozen soils and ice. In Proceedings, 6th Interna
Smith, M.B. (1974) A parabolic yield condition tional Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
for anisotropic rocks and soils. Ph.D. thesis, Rice 26-31 May 1996, Los Angeles, voi. 2, p. 291-296.
University, Houston, Texas. Zaretsky, Yu.K., and A.M. Fish (1996b) Effect
Timeo, G.W., and R.M.W. Frederking (1986) of temperature on the strength and viscosity of
Confined compression tests: Outlining the fail ice. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation En
ure envelope of columnar sea ice. Cold Regions gineering (translated from Russian), voi. 33(2):
Science and Technology, 12: 13-28. 46-52.
14
Form Approved
REPO RT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden tor this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestion for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington,
VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1 . AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
October 1997
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
FIRST CLASS
bureau OF RECLAMATION LIBRARY D-7925
P.o. BOX 25007
DENVER FEDERAL CTR
DENVER CO 80225
USA