Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T18:57:47.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A laboratory study of sediment deformation: stress heterogeneity and grain-size evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Neal R. Iverson
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, U.S.A.
Thomas S. Hooyer
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, U.S.A.
Roger Leb. Hooke
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In shearing sediment beneath glaciers, networks of grains may transiently support shear and normal stresses that are larger than spatial averages. Consistent with studies of fault-gouge genesis, we hypothesize that crushing of grains in such networks is responsible for surrounding larger grains with smaller grains. At sufficiently large strains, this should minimize stress heterogeneity, favor intergranular sliding and abrasion rather than crushing, and result in a self-similar grain-size distribution.

This hypothesis is tested with a ring-shear device that slowly shears a large annular sediment sample to high strains. Shearing and comminution of weak equigranular (2.0–3.3 mm) sediment resulted in a self-similar grain-size distribution with a fractal dimension that increased with shear strain toward a steady value of 2.85. This value is significantly larger than that of gouges produced purely by crushing, 2.6, but it is comparable to values for tilts thought to be deforming beneath modern glaciers, 2.8 to nearly 3.0. At low strains, under a steady mean normal stress of 84 kPa, variations in normal stress measured locally ranged in amplitude from 50 to 300 kPa with wavelengths that were 100 times larger than the initial grain diameter. Crushing of grains, observed through the transparent walls of the device, apparently caused the failure of grain networks. At shearing displacements ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 m, the amplitude of local stress fluctuations decreased abruptly. This change is attributed to fine sediment that distributed stresses more uniformly and caused grain networks to fail primarily by intergranular sliding rather than by crushing of grains. Sliding between grains apparently produced silt by abrasion and resulted in a fractal dimension that was higher than if there had been only crushing.

A size distribution with a fractal dimension greater than 2.6 is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition for determining whether a basal till has been highly deformed. Stress heterogeneity in subglacial sediment that is shearing through its full thickness should contribute to the erosion of underlying rock.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1996
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Segment of groin bridge that may fail by tensile fracture of a grain or by sliding between grains. (b) Idealized bridge in which grain A is cushioned by smaller grains that distribute σ over several contacts.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. (a) Photograph and (b) line drawing of the ring-shear apparatus. Lightly shaded components rotate.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Photographs taken through the outer wall of the apparatus and interpretive sketches of the photographs. The gap divides the rotating lower wall from the stationary upper wall. The screw that is visible in the lower wall in the top and bottom photographs and in the corresponding sketches is about 4 mm wide. (a) Strain markers after a shearing displacement of about 35 mm. Visibility was poor immediately beneath the gap owing to an unpolished recess in the lower wall, (b) Tensile fracture of two grains roughly parallet to the most compressive principal stress. (c) Strain markers and fine sediment that resulted from comminution after a shearing displacement of 2.6 m. The upper platen is visible due to thinning of the sample caused by comminution. Fine sediment that squeezed between the walls obscured the sample adjacent to the lower wall.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. (a) Thin section of sediment with a self-similar size distribution produced during an experiment. Note the lack of grains of similar size in mutual contact. The field of view is about 5 mm. (b) Thin section of what is interpreted to be a basal till from the Des Moines lobe in southern Minnesota. U.S.A. The field of view is 2.5 mm.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. (a) Histograms of the sediment grain-size distribution at shear strains of approximately 8, 57 and 130. (b) Plot of grain diameter vs number of grains at shear strains of 8 and 130 with best-fit lines. Samples were collected from a 10 mm thick zone immediately below the gap near the sample center.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. (a) Fractal dimension of the sediment grain-size distribution as a function of shear strain and shearing displacement. The label on each point refers to the experiment in which the sample was taken. (b) Local normal stress and sediment shear strength during three experiments. The dashed line shows the mean normal stress on the sample. Data are not presented for MS-1 due to transient effects induced by frequent removal of the normal-load plate for sampling. The gap in the MS-4 record resulted from a power failure, (c) Normalized sample thickness.