Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T16:06:15.057Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ice flow at low deviatoric stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Erin C. Pettit
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, P.O. Box 351350, Seattle,Washington 98195-1310, U.S.A. E-mail: epettit@ess.washington.edu
Edwin D. Waddington
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, P.O. Box 351350, Seattle,Washington 98195-1310, U.S.A. E-mail: epettit@ess.washington.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effective viscosity of ice depends upon many factors, including temperature, deviatoric stress, crystal orientation and impurities. A flow law that includes these factors and is simple to implement is a requirement for numerically efficient ice-flow models. The dominant microscale flow mechanism changes as temperature, deviatoric stress or grain-size changes. For both anisotropic and isotropic constitutive relations, this shift in dominant flow mechanism is expressed as a change in the stress exponent. We study the effects of this shift in stress exponent on ice flow using a two-term flow law for isotropic ice. Our stress–strain-rate relationship does not explicitly describe the microscale processes of ice deformation; however, it encompasses a range of deformation behaviors with a simple law. In terrestrial ice, a flow-mechanism shift may occur in low-deviatoric-stress regions near ice divides, resulting in a near-linear constitutive relationship for ice flow. Compared to a non-linear (Glen) divide, a divide dominated by a near-linear flow mechanism has vertical-velocity profiles that are similar at divide and flank sites, internal layers that do not develop a Raymond bump, and a steady-state surface profile that is more rounded near the divide.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2003
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Cartoon showing the approximate pattern of effective deviatoric stress, τeff, for a typical ice divide.The arrows show approximate ice-flow trajectories. τxx is the longitudinal stress, which cannot be ignored in the region near an ice divide. It is largest near the surface and approaches zero near the bed (Raymond, 1983). τxz is the horizontal shear stress. It is zero at the divide and increases with depth and with distance from the divide. The extent of the region of very low deviatoric stress (white) will vary with the thickness and the accumulation rate.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Strain rate vs deviatoric stress for the linear and cubic terms in Equation (7).The dashed curve shows the total strain rate (i.e. the sum of the two terms). k is the crossover stress at which the linear and cubic terms contribute equally to the total strain rate.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. The natural range of divide characteristic stress on Earth, illustrated by applying Equation (12) to a wide range of ice divides worldwide.We estimated H, b and T from data available from a variety of sources, including scientific litera-three divides shown in bold type are studied in more detail in Figures 6 and 7. Labels are as follows: Q, Quelccaya ice cap, Andes, Peru (SAIC); BG, Blue Glacier, Olympic Mountains, Washington, U.S.A.; D, Dunde ice cap, Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau; V, Vatnajokull, Iceland; Au, Austfonna ice cap, Svalbard; G, Guliya ice cap, Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau; B, Barnes Ice Cap, Baffin Island, Canada; Ag, Agassiz Ice Cap, Ellesmere Island, Canada; DI, Devon Ice Cap, Canada; LD, Law Dome, Wilkes Land, East Antarctica; WAIS, inland divide of the West Antarctic ice sheet; SD, Siple Dome, Siple Coast, West Antarctica (SWAR); GS, Greenland Summit (GRIP/GISP2); L(LGM), Laurentide paleo-ice sheet at Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), North America; TD, Taylor Dome, Victoria Land, East Antarctica; TD(LGM), Taylor Dome at LGM, Victoria Land, East Antarctica; DA, Dome A, East Antarctica; VD, Valkyrie Dome, site of Dome Fuji station, Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica (EAR).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Characterization of ice divides based on magnitude of non-dimensional stress, Ω.Where is greater than unity (shaded region), the Glen term in the flow law will dominate; where Ω is less than unity (unshaded region), the linear term will dominate.

Figure 4

Table 1. Model input parameters for the three divides

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Modeled vertical-velocity profiles for divide flow (assuming a range of Ωchar) and for flank flow for the SWAR. The SAIC and the EAR model results are qualitatively similar. Glen flow occurs when the non-linear term dominates; there is a significant difference between the Glen profile and the flank profile where the non-linear term always dominates. At a transitional divide, the linear term causes the divide profile to resemble the flank profile more closely. In the limit of Ωchar → 0, there is no difference between the divide profile and the flank profile.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Modeled steady-state isochrones for three idealized ice divides, in order of increasing τchar, assuming four different values for the unknown crossover stress, k.The EAR has the lowest τchar and thus shows the largest effect from the linear term.The SAIC has the largest τchar and thus shows very little effect from the linear term.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Modeled surface morphology for the three divides in Figure 6.The transition from Glen flow to linear flow causes a flattening of the surface in the divide region because of the change in the velocity field (see Fig. 5).