Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T11:47:19.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Implications of till deformation on glacier dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Martin Truffer
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7320, U.S.A.
Keith A. Echelmeyer
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7320, U.S.A.
William D. Harrison
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7320, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dynamics of glacier motion are governed to a large extent by the properties of the basal interface. In this paper we address the interaction of a glacier with a layer of till at its bed in an attempt to test whether our physical understanding of till is sufficient to explain general features of the observed flow field and changes in geometry of Black Rapids Glacier, Alaska, U.S.A. We also investigate whether or not a till layer has a clear surface-observable signature in the dynamics of the glacier. Towards this end we use a finite-element ice-flow model with a Coulomb failure criterion within the basal till layer. We find that simple “till physics” can be used to describe decadal, seasonal and short-term (hours to days) velocity variations, and possibly uplift events. Mechanisms for each of these variations involve an increase in the extent of till at failure, a transfer of shear stress across the bed, and a consequent increase in ice deformation. “Effective shape factors” are calculated that permit a simple incorporation of this boundary condition into glacier response models. Our analyses, however, have not resulted in the identification of a clear and unique signature of a till layer in the surface dynamics of a glacier.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2001
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of Black Rapids Glacier. The diamonds show the positions of the drillholes. A dot marks every 5 km starting from the head of the glacier. The dashed line shows the Denali Fault. Units are meters in a local coordinate system.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Water level below the glacier surface in holes N1 (solid line) and Center (dotted line). Months in 1997/98 are shown on the abscissa.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Cross-section of Black Rapids Glacier used in this study. H is the piezometric depth below the glacier surface and h(x) is the ice thickness. The location of the boreholes is indicated. (b) Finite-element grid for the “base” model. The thin layer of boundary elements along the glacier bed cannot be seen clearly at this resolution. The z direction is into the plane. (c) Model with a tributary. See text for details.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Velocity (in m a−1) for α = 1.70°, H = 55 m and φ = 30°. The flag shows the approximate position of the N1 borehole. Dashed contours are at 5 m a−1 increments, dotted at 1 m a−1 increments from 65 to 69 m a−1. Note the vertical exaggeration from Figure 3.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Calculated ice-velocity profile at the Ml borehole (line) with height above bed. The dots show values obtained from deformation measurements near the bottom of the borehole.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. The modeled transverse profile of velocity is shown by the solid line. The dots are measurements from summer 1993 scaled to the modeled center-line velocity. Including a tributary in the model improves the fit slightly (dashed line), but the no-slip condition at the sides must be relaxed to obtain a good fit to the measured profile (dotted line).

Figure 6

Table 1. Sensitivity of the change in maximum surface velocity (Δv) to changes, δ, in surface slope, depth to piezometric surface and friction angle

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Mean annual velocities at a site close to the drilling area. This is an update of the plot from Heinrichs and others (1996).

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Surface velocity at the center line, plotted as a function of depth to the piezometric surface (or effective pressure at Center, upper axis). Surface slope is denoted by α.

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Average monthly velocities derived from time-lapse camera data, 1986–96, from a site 2 km up-glacier from the study area (dotted step plot). The solid step plot results if speed-up events are removed from the record, as explained in the text. The smooth curve shows velocities calculated from modeled water pressures at 4 m below the top of the till.

Figure 10

Fig. 10. A speed-up event caused by the drainage of a marginal lake. (a) Velocity measured with GPS methods; (b) vertical position minus the downhill movement, also measured with GPS methods; (c) water levels (in m below surface) measured in boreholes N1 (dotted line) and S1 (solid line). The water-level record of the N1 hole is shifted up by 40 m for display purposes.

Figure 11

Fig. 11. De-trended vertical position (solid line) measured at the center of the channel, and calculated expansion and contraction of the underlying till layer (dotted line). A compressibility of αv = 10−6 Pa−1 was used.

Figure 12

Fig. 12. Diagram of the stress transfer mechanisms as explained in the text. A positive correlation is indicated by plus signs, a negative correlation by minus signs (e.g an increase in water pressure leads to a decrease in till strength at the channel center). (A), (B) and (C) correspond to the three mechanisms described in the text.

Figure 13

Fig. 13. Shear stress redistribution. The top panels show shear stress (a) and velocity (b) contours for a depth to the piezometric surface of 70 m. The bottom panels show the same contours for a depth to the piezometric depth of 55 m (c, d).The bold line indicates the area of till at failure. The axes are in kilometers, velocities are in m a−1 and stresses in 100 kPa.

Figure 14

Table 2. Effective shape factors for parabolic glacier cross-sections

Figure 15

Fig. 14. Center-line shear stress distribution with height above the bed (normalized by the center-line depth of 600 m) for a parabolic channel for different piezometric depths, H. The curves increasingly deviate from a linear stress-depth relation as H is decreased. The model represents a best parabolic fit to Figure 3b.