MS Thesis Pandey

DISTURBED STATE MODELLING FOR CREEP
RESPONSE OF SUBGLACIAL TILL
by
AMIT PANDEY
___________________________
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND
ENGINEERING MECHANICS
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2005
Dedicated to
Uncle Sushil K. Puri

and
cousin brother Mr. Sunil Punetha
May God bless their Soul..

4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor C.S.Desai for providing
guidance and valuable suggestions and advice during my Masters program at The
University of Arizona.
Special thanks to Dr. D.N. Contractor, Dr S. Merry for their suggestions and for
serving on my committee.
The love, patience, encouragement, guidance and moral support given to me by
my parents, sister and relatives are deeply appreciated. Special thanks to my friend Mr.
Shantanu sane for his encouragement, technical support and help during preparation of
this thesis.
I am grateful to my friends and roommates Dhananjay, Rajarashi, Vineet,
Navneeth, Rohit , Wen, Bridgette and Elizabeth for their kind words and encouragement.
My special thanks to Hemant and Chandana for their love during my stay at Tucson.
I am honored to have a friend like Saurabh, without him it would not be possible
for me to come here for my studies. I would like to thank my B-Tech advisor Prof
T.N.Singh, Associate Professor, IIT-Bombay for his encouragement and support.
The research herein was supported through research grant No. EAR-0229513 by
the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. This support is sincerely appreciated.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8
TU UT T
1.1
U U Necessity of Present Research ............................................................................ 8
U U
1.2
U U Objective and Scope of Research ....................................................................... 9
U U
1.3
U U Organization of Text ........................................................................................... 9
U U
DEFORMATION OF GLACIAL TILL ........................................................................... 11

U U
1.1
U U Introduction ....................................................................................................... 11
U U
1.2
U U Properties of Till ............................................................................................... 12
U U
1.3
U U Flow Relations for Till ...................................................................................... 14
U U
1.4
U U Flow Relation .................................................................................................... 21
U U
1.5
U U Yield Stress and effective velocity ................................................................... 21
U U
RHEOLOGICAL MATERIAL MODELS ................................................................... 25

U U
1.1
U U Introduction ....................................................................................................... 25
U U
1.2
U U Viscoelastic (ve) Overlay Model ...................................................................... 26
U U
1.3
U U Elastoviscoplastic (evp) Perzynas Model (1966) ......................................... 28
U U
1.4
U U Viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp) Model ............................................................. 29
U U
THE DISTURBED STATE CONCEPT ........................................................................... 31

U U
1.1
U U Introduction ....................................................................................................... 31
U U
1.2
U U Multicomponent DSC and Overlay Model ....................................................... 33
U U
LABORATORY CREEP EXPERIMENTS, PARAMETER DETERMINATION AND

U
BACK PREDICTION ....................................................................................................... 37

U
1.1
U U Introduction ....................................................................................................... 37
U U
1.2
U U Mechanics of Viscoplastic Solution.................................................................. 39
U U
1.3
U U Results and Discussions .................................................................................... 41
U U
1.4
U U Determination of Viscous Parameters .............................................................. 63
U U
1.5
U U General Procedure............................................................................................. 65
U U
1.6
U U Material Parameters for Perzynas (evp) Model ............................................... 67
U U
1.7
U U Back-prediction of Creep Tests ........................................................................ 75
U U
6
1.8
U U Material Parameters in Overlay Model ............................................................. 85
U U
1.8.1
U U Viscoelastic (ve) Overlay Model .................................................................. 85
U U
1.8.2
U U Viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp) Overlay Model ........................................... 86
U U
COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DSC AND FINITE ELEMENT

U
ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 87
U
1.1
U U Introduction ....................................................................................................... 87
U U
1.2
U U Results and Discussions .................................................................................... 87
U U
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 106

U U
1.1
U U New Contribution............................................................................................ 107
U U
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 108

U U
7
ABSTRACT
The existing relations for constitutive behavior of glacial tills are based essentially
on empirical considerations. Due to the lack of well established relations, most analyses
have been based on one of the two simplified assumptions, that the subglacial till is either
a Newtonian viscous material or a perfectly plastic material. The simplified assumption
for till behavior, presented a major insight into actual movement of ice sheets. However,
there is a need for constitutive modeling based on fundamental considerations. Such a
model can play an important role in analysis and prediction of ice sheet movement.
A general concept, called the Disturbed State Concept (DSC) is applied to analyze
the creep behavior of the subglacial till. The DSC is a general theory for material
modelling that has been successfully applied previously to a wide range of practical
problems.
The creep model parameters for the subglacial till are evaluated using data from
laboratory tests on the Material Testing System (MTS) for the stress- strain (CTC)
behavior and triaxial creep device for creep behavior.
The creep model parameters were determined from the creep test data. The back
prediction was done by the one-dimensional procedure. The DSC model with specific
parameters is implemented in a non-linear static finite element program (DSC-SST2D). It
is used to solve the elastoviscoplastic (evp) and viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp) behavior
for the subglacial till.
Based on the results of this research, it can be stated that DSC with vevp Overlay
model can best describe the constitutive behavior of the subglacial till, thus improving the
understanding of subglacial processes.

8
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Improving our understanding of subglacial processes is important, because they
may exert important influences on global climate changes. Research done on the behavior
of subglacial tills has shown that simple rheological models have been used in the past to
describe the deformation mechanism of ice sheets, whereas stress system in the glacier is
very complex. The flow relation has to be generalized to cover such cases. In an elastic
material deformation and stress are proportional whereas in a Newtonian viscous
material, the rate of deformation is proportional to the stress. In a perfectly plastic
material a gradual increasing stress produces no deformation until a critical value, the
yield stress is reached, after which rapid deformation begins.
1.1 Necessity of Present Research
The northern hemisphere ice sheets have played an important role in global
climate through their influence on solar albedo, atmospheric circulation and continental
freshwater runoff. Understanding climate dynamics and sea level history thus requires
the consideration of the factors that control the extent and thickness of ice sheets. Of
these, the mechanics of ice movement is most probably the most fundamental. This is a
very complex problem, conventional and advance computer methods are needed to gain
insight. The computer methods will rely on constitutive models that have been calibrated
using appropriate testing.

9
1.2 Objective and Scope of Research
The objective of this research is to gain further understanding of the creep behavior of
glacial tills. To accomplish this, the DSC model will be used. This model will be
calibrated from the laboratory tests performed on a till from Manitoba, Canada (Fig.1.1).
The scope of the research is as follows.
1. Conduct appropriate laboratory creep experiments on the subglacial till;
2. Determination of creep parameters;
3. Back prediction using the one dimensional creep procedure and comparing the
results with laboratory observations;
4. Apply the DSC-creep model in appropriate manner to describe the creep behavior
of subglacial till;
5. Verify the DSC-creep model by comparing the model with the results of
independent tests; and
6. Further prediction of creep results for unloading and interpretation of results.
1.3 Organization of Text
A brief review of the studies done to understand the deformation of subglacial till
and the existing flow relation for till is presented in Chapter 2
In Chapter 3, the review of various rheological models is described in brief.
In Chapter 4, the DSC, Multicomponent DSC and the Overlay model is described
in brief.
Chapter 5 discusses the results from triaxial creep experiments, the procedure for
one dimensional creep program and the procedure for evaluating the creep parameters for
viscoelastic (ve) model, Perzynas elastoviscoplastic model (evp) and

10
viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp) model. Chapter 5 also discusses the results from the one
dimensional procedure and compares them with the laboratory observations.
Chapter 6 briefly describes the implementation of DSC to finite element
procedure. Chapter 6 also discusses the results from nonlinear finite element program
DSC-SST2D by Desai, 1999 and compares these results with the laboratory observations.
FIGURE 1.1-The site from where the till was excavated for laboratory testing (Roy
1998).
11
CHAPTER 2
DEFORMATION OF GLACIAL TILL
1.1 Introduction
In theoretical analysis of glacier sliding, the ice is assumed to move over a bed
that is rigid and impermeable. In fact, glacial retreat often reveals not bedrock but glacial
deposits (till). As a large-scale example, the southwestern portion of the Laurentide ice
sheet (now Great Lake basin) was underlain by glacial sediments, as was the central part
over the present Hudson Bay, Northern Manitoba, Canada. Geologists have long known
that till can, under certain conditions, deform in shear (MacClintock and Dreimanis,
1964) but they have, until recently, ignored this fact.
Observations in Iceland and Antarctica show a change in view, Boulton and Jones
(1979) showed that, near the margin of the Breidamerkurjkull glacier, shear in a layer of
water- saturated till accounted for 90% of the velocity measured at the glaciers surface.
The yield stress in shear of this till is only 3 to 8kPa (Boulton and Dent, 1974); such a
shear stress produces significant deformation in ice. Seismic reflection surveys on Ice
Stream B in West Antarctica showed that the ice is underlain by a layer of till several
meters thick that is highly porous and saturated with water. Deformation of subglacial till
could explain why the ice is moving several hundred meters per year although the driving
stress is only about 20kPa (Blankenship and others, 1986, 1987). The driving stress is
the driving force distributed over the entire frictional surface that resist over the ice base.
The driving force is the component of the glaciers weight that is operating parallel to the
frictional surface i.e., in the direction of ice movement.

12
Deformation of subglacial till could explain the low surface slopes, which
corresponds to basal stresses of only 7 to 22kPa , of some of the southern lobes of the
Laurentide ice Sheet, as inferred from the geological evidence (Mathews, 1974).
Conditions (hydraulic conductivity, diffusivity) in subglacial till may also control the
behavior of some surging glaciers (Clarke and others, 1984).
1.2 Properties of Till
The term till, as used by glaciologist, refers to deformable subglacial sediments
irrespective of whether they are originally deposited by a glacier or by water. To a
geologist, till is a poorly graded sediment with little structure deposited by the glacier.
The particles in till range from clay and silt (fines) to pebbles, cobbles and boulders
(coarse and clast). Water, contained in pores within a matrix of the fine- grained material,
is an essential component of a deformable till.
Porosity is the fraction of the total volume that consists of pores. Typical values
are 0.2 to 0.4 (Boulton and Dent, 1974). The upper values appear to be typical of a
saturated till that is deforming subglacially.
Steady state flow of a fluid through a porous medium is assumed to be governed
by Darcys Law. It states that the flux through the porous medium varies directly with the
pressure gradient and inversely with the viscosity of the fluid. For a parallel sided till
layer lying on an impermeable surface of slope , the flux q in m / s is given by
k p
q= g sin (2.1)
s
13
Here, is the density of the fluid, is viscosity Pa s , g the acceleration due to
gravity, p the pressure of the fluid in the pores, and s a distance coordinate measured in
the direction of flow. The quantity k is the hydraulic intrinsic permeability. It depends on
the porosity, and when the till is compressed its porosity and permeability decrease
(consolidation). Because the amount of compression depends on the hydrostatic
pressure of the overlying material and on the pressure of the water in the pores, the
permeability depends on these quantities as well. Measured values of k for deformable
tills are in the range 2 10 13 to 4 10 15 m 2 .
gk
Hydraulic conductivity is expressed as = (m / s ) . For water at 0 0 C ,

= 1.787 103 Pa s and = 5.5 10 6 k .
Change in water pressure at the surface are propagated into a till layer according
to the diffusion equation. The equation for one dimension is given by
2 p p
D 2 = (2.2)
z t
Here p is the water pressure, z depth, t time, and D is the hydraulic diffusivity.
Diffusivity depends on the porosity and permeability of the till and depends on the
viscosity and compressibility of water. Values of D are in the range
4 10 4 to 6 10 7 m 2 / s (Boulton and Dent, 1974).
Stresses applied to the till are distributed between the solid matrix and the water
pores. The deformable properties of the granular materials depend upon what is called the
effective stress obtained by subtracting the pore-water pressure p , taken as positive, from
the normal components x , y , z of the total stress. As regard the deformation in shear,
14
one possible approximation is to treat till as a perfectly plastic material i.e., it does not
deform if the applied stress is less than the yield stress or shear stress 0 i.e., rigid plastic.
The Yield stress may be obtained from Mohr- Coulomb criterion as
0 = c 0 + N tan (2.3)
where, 0 is shear stress, N is the normal stress, c0 and is the cohesion and friction
angle of the material respectively.
Dilatancy, a property granular material, is an added complication in till
deformation. A dilatant material expands on shearing because the grains rearrange
themselves in a way that increases the pore space; this weakens the material. A
consolidated till can recover porosity and permeability in this way. On the other hand, a
dilated till collapses or stiffens when deformation stops. Subglacial till deforms
appreciably only if it is water-saturated and pore pressures are high. Boulton and other
(1974) demonstrated dilatant behavior in laboratory tests on an Icelandic till.
1.3 Flow Relations for Till
Till is a complex material and, its deformation rate depends not only on the
applied shear but also on effective stress, porosity, volume fraction of fines, and strain. It
is inhomogeneous and may be anisotropic if deformation has produced a preferred
orientation in the grains. In studies done before, till is assumed to be water-saturated, ice
free, and isotropic. Only steady state deformation in simple shear is considered and the
strain rate is assumed to depend only on shear stress and effective pressure. The steady
state assumption implies that the till has been deformed to large strains so that change in
strength due to dilatant expansion is completed. The objective is to obtain a flow relation
15
that can be used in modelling the flow of glaciers with deformable beds, especially the
ice streams in West Antarctica. The extensive studies of the behavior of clay rich soil
have never produced a flow relation of type explained above. In soil mechanics, the usual
interest is in condition of failure; in glaciology it is in the relation between strain rate and
residual strength that is, the shear stress needed to produce continuing deformation after
failure.
Mechanical tests on samples of till in the laboratory can suffer from some
drawbacks. As in ice testing, it is difficult to carry on a test long enough to reach a steady
state. Deformation rates are higher than those in the field and so the measured strength
may be different. Large clasts have to be removed from the sample before testing.
Because interactions between clasts are part of the deformation process, their removal
changes the mechanical properties. Measurements of the shear strain rate and pore- water
pressure in subglacial till are difficult, only few have been made. The reasons for it are as
follows-
1. The base of glacier is inaccessible, except near the margin of a glacier. Also, the
stress conditions at the margin are not same as in the interior,
2. Glaciers are only found in remote and inhospitable places, e.g. Antarctica or
Alaska/ Yukon, and
3. The installation of borehole could alter the in-situ stress and water pressure.
Existing flow relations for till are empirical relations between such measurements
of strain rate, shear stress, and effective pressure. Other factors that affect the mechanical
properties, the size distribution of the particles are ignored. The factor could be till
16
composition, clay mineralogy etc. The review of data from different locations and the
existing flow relations for till are as follows.
Data: Breidamerkurjkull
Breidamerkurjkull is a temperate glacier in Iceland (Boulton and Hindmarsh,
1987). The data consist of seven triplets of values of shear strain rate & , shear stress ,
and effective normal pressure N measured in a 0.5m thick layer of till deforming under
about 10m of ice near the glacier margin. Strain rates and water pressures are averages
over unspecified periods. Moreover, longitudinal stresses, which may predominate over
shears near the terminus, were neglected. The data fitted a relation of the from
& = B1 a N b (2.4)
where, a = 1.33 , b = 1.80 , B1 = 34.8(kPa) 0.47 a 1 .
Equation 4 implies that & 0 as N ; in other words, the till grains can move freely
past each other. This is unrealistic because till cannot dilate indefinitely. Fowler and
Walder (1993) therefore rewrote the equation as
& = B2 a ( N + N 0 )b (2.5)
The constants obtained from the same data are, a = 1.47 , b = 2.34 , B2 = 172(kPa) 0.87 a 1 ,
N = 4.5kPa .
Boulton and Hindmarsh obtained a second relation by assuming that strain depended not
on the total stress but on the amount by which it exceeded a yield stress. The relation is
& = B3 ( 0 )a N b (2.6)
17
with a = 0.065 , b = 1.25 , B3 = 121(kPa) 0.625 N 1 . The yield stress was obtained form Eq.
3.1.3 with c0 = 3.75kPa and tan = 0.625 . These parameters appear to have been
obtained independently by laboratory tests on the till.
Although Boulton and Hindmarsh measured velocity-depth profiles in the till,
they used only strain rates averaged and, with the simplifying assumption that a and b are
integers, concluded that the shape of the profiles was consistent with a relation of the
from
& = B4 ( 0 ) (2.7)
N2
However, the shape of the velocity depth profiles is determined to some extent not by the
behavior of the fine-grained matrix but by the position of boulders.
Data: Trapridge Glacier
Trapridge Glacier is a small glacier in the Yukon, Canada. The ice is less than
100m thick. Continuously recording tilt and pressure sensors showed that till deformation
beneath Trapridge Glacier is more complicated than that in an idealized sheet of till
shearing uniformly in one direction (Blake, 1992). In four days average values in 1988
were & = 36a 1 , N = 292kPa ; the six days average values in 1988 were & = 4.1a 1 ,
N = 78kPa . The shear stress , calculated in the usual way, was 77 kPa in both cases.
Data: Ice Stream B
Ice Stream B is one of the five ice sheet that drain ice from the interior of West
Antarctica to the Rose Ice Shelf. It is about 300km long and 30 to 80km wide. An
analytic, steady state solution for ice stream B, shows that till viscosity decreases slowly
18
downstream, probably in response to decreasing effective pressure downstream (Kamb,
1991). Surface velocities are in the range 50 to 825m / a compare with less than
10m / a for the ice on either side. An extensive seismic reflection survey revealed a layer,
6m thick on average, at the base of the ice. The velocities of both compressional ( P) and
shear ( S ) waves in this layer were abnormally low. Their values implied that the material
in the layer was highly porous (porosity about 0.4) and saturated with water at high pore
pressure that supported nearly all of the weight of the 1050 m of ice. The estimated
effective pressure was 50 40kPa , compared with the overburden pressure of 9.2 MPa .
The surface velocity at UpB (Upstream portion of Ice Stream B) is
440m / a although the basal shear stress is only 20kPa . The surface velocity of
440m / a results entirely form deformation of 6m of till, the average strain rate is 73a 1 .
Eq.2.4 and Eq.2.5, with the minimum effective pressure of 30kPa , predict a strain rate of
only 4a 1 . Eq.2.6, with N = 30kPa and 0 = 2kPa , predict & = 10a 1 . The yield stress
calculated from Eq.2.3, with N = 30kPa and Boulton and Hindmarshs (1987) value of
c 0 and , is greater than the basal shear stress. The data from Ice Stream B and Trapridge
Glacier therefore do not support the Boulton-Hindmarsh (1987) relation.
A simple one dimensional coupled ice- till flow model for ice stream flow on
deforming till was proposed by (Alley and others. 1987). The model is based on data of
ice- stream B. In this model it is assumed that ice stream behavior will be quantitatively
and qualitatively different on deforming till as opposed to water lubricating rock. The
physical concept of till conservation, ice conservation plus a flow law for till is used.
From these a coupled equation is derived by Alley and others (1987) for the time rate of
19
change of ice thickness and till thickness, the accumulated rate of ice and till, and till
properties.
For one-dimensional flow of ice of constant density, continuity of ice can be
stated as
( )
hu
= b&
h
(2.8)
x t
where x is the horizontal coordinates in the direction of ice flow with the origin taken in
the bed under the head of the ice- stream, h is the ice thickness, u is the ice velocity in
the x direction averaged over thickness, b& is the net accumulation rate of ice(net ice flow
minus basal melting) in ice thickness equivalents. Similarly, for till of constant density
flowing in the x direction, continuity yields
(
hb u b ) h
= b&b b (2.9)
x t
where, h is the till thickness, u b is the till velocity in the x direction, u b , averaged over
thickness, and b& b is the till generation rate.
It is assumed that till exhibits linear viscous rheology. For one-dimensional flow
in simple shear the flow law reduces to
u b
b = (2.10)
z
where b is the basal shear stress, is the Newtonian viscosity, and z is the vertical
coordinate, positive upward. Eq.2.8 to Eq.2.10 incorporates the physics of one-
dimensional model.
20
Because the till is thin compared to overlaying ice, the shear stress acting in the
till is nearly constant with depth. For linear viscous till with no slip boundaries the
equations given by Alley and others, 1987 are expressed as
h & g h
2
2h h h h hh
=b h hhb 2 + 2hb + h b b (2.11)
t x x x x x x
and
hb g h hb 2h h hb hhb h
2
h
= Kh hhb 2 + hb + 2h (2.12)
t x 2 x x x x x x
The Eq.2.11 and Eq.2.12 describe time-dependent ice stream flow on a deformable bed.
For materials that deviate from linear-viscous rheology, the viscosity listed in the Table
2.1 is the effective viscosity at the existing state of stress.
Table 2.1-Viscosity of till and other materials

Material Viscosity (Pa. s) References
Water 1.8 10 3 Weast, 1973
Mudflow 4.5 10 2 Joshnson, 1970
Till, UpB 8.0 10 9 Alley and others, 1987
Till, Breidamerkurjkull 3.2 1018 Boulton and others, 1987
Till, Blue Glacier 1.8 1011 Engelhardt et. al, 1978
Ice, at bed, UpB 3.5 1014 Paterson, 1994
Mantle rocks 10 21 Turcotte and Schubert,
1982
21
1.4 Flow Relation
The above described flow relations for the steady-state shear deformation of water
saturated till can be written in the from
& = B( 0 )a N b 0 (2.13)
& = 0 <0 (2.14)
later a term N 0 is added to N to keep & finite as N 0 . The simplest case is to assume
that till behaves as a Newtonian viscous material so that 0 = 0 , a = 1 , b = 0 and 1 / B is
the viscosity. This relation has been used in two analyses of flow in ice streams by
MacAyeal (1989) and Alley and others (1987b)
1.5 Yield Stress and effective velocity
For lack of a well-established flow relation, most analyses of bed deformation
have been based on one of two simplifying assumptions, namely that subglacial till
deformation as either a Newtonian viscous material (a = 1) or a perfectly plastic
one (a ) . Table 3.2 list some measured values of yield stress 0 (kPa ) and its
component, cohesion c0 (kPa ) and friction angle (deg ) .
The values were measured on samples in the laboratory. The yield stresses were
measured in the field either on the fresh samples or, at Columbia and Trapridge glaciers,
by a rod driven into the till from the bottom of a borehole. Ice movement drags the rod
through the till, the mechanical properties of which can be inferred the way rod bent.
Bending is measure when rod is extracted or remotely by strain gauges bounded to it (a
ploughmeter). At Breidamerkurjkull, the upper layer had a high proportion of slit and
22
clay and was deforming subglacially, while the lower layer, with much slit and clay, was
not found. The data from this glacier show that laboratory tests give higher yield stresses
than those obtained by field measurements; a yield stress measured in the field is even
less than the cohesion measured in the laboratory. All the pair of values of c 0 and in
the table would give a yield stress for Ice Stream B that exceeds the basal shear stress
there. The field measurements of the yield stress are probably more useful, although they
suffer from the drawback that the effective pressure is not known.
TABLE 2.2- Measurement of yield stress, cohesion and friction angle.
0 (kPa ) c0 (kPa ) (deg ) Glacier Reference
- 15 30 Typical till Clarke, 1987b

- 0-40 31-39 New England till Lingle and
others, 1974
7.5 28 27 Bredamerkur Boulton and
upper layer others, 1974
32.5 21 28 Bredamerkur Boulton and
lower layer others, 1974
3.75 32 Bredamerkur Boulton and
Hindmarsh, 1987
60 5 31 Stor R.L.Hooke, pers.
comm..
2 - - Ice Stream B Kamb, 1991
5.5-13 - - Columbia Humphrey and
others. 1993
48-57 - - Trapridge Fisher and
Clarke, 1994
23
Till will deform only if its yield stress is less than the basal stress of the overlying
ice, which is often about 100kPa . With the values of c 0 and for typical till (Table 3.2),
this implies that the effective stress must be less than 145kPa . Because the overburden
pressure of 250m of ice is 2.2 MPa , till will deform only if its pore water pressure is at
least 90 to 95% of the overburden pressure.
TABLE 2.3 Estimates of effective viscosity of till.
(Pa s ) Glacier Method Reference:
5 1010 5 1011 Breidamerkur data*P P Boulton and

Hindmarsh, 1987
3 1010 1.5 1011 Trapridage data*P P Blake, 1992
3 10 9 3 1010 Trapridage ploughmeter Fischer and Clarke,

1994
2 10 8 5 10 8 Columbia Bent drill rod Humphrey and
others, 1993
*
8 10 9 Ice Stream B data P P Alley and others,
1986
2 10 9 1.4 1010 Ice Stream B fits to model Alley and others,
1987b
10 8 1.5 10 9 Ice Stream B fits to model MacAyeal, 1989
*
P Measurement of basal stress and either strain rate or velocity and till thickness.
P
Table 2.3 lists the estimates of what the viscosity of till would be if it were to
deform as a Newtonian viscous material; there is no evidence that it does. The
ploughmeter and drill rod values are based on the same measurement as before, but
24
analyzed under the assumption that till is Newtonian viscous not perfectly plastic. The
last two ranges of values are based on modeling studies in which viscosity was adjusted
to give the best fit to surface velocities along the ice stream.
The spread of the estimates by the factor 5000 and by 50 on the same glaciers,
strongly suggest that till is not a Newtonian viscous material; in other words, its viscosity
is not constant but depends on the stress.
The reviews done in this chapter are the part of research published by references
listed in this chapter and mainly from the book Physics of Glaciers by Patersons, 1994.
The purpose of this review is to present the results from field investigation and laboratory
results performed on subglacial tills (Table 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) and later compare these
results with the result calculated in the subsequent chapters.

25
CHAPTER 3
RHEOLOGICAL MATERIAL MODELS
1.1 Introduction
The theory of rheological models used as a combination of several mechanical
elements (springs, dashpots, frictional resistance to movement) connected in series or
parallel or both. These systems represent only the mechanical behavior of the material
under condition of testing, but have nothing in common with the real material. The
following are the three basic elements forming mechanical models.
1. A perfectly elastic spring representing truly elastic deformation.
2. A dashpot representing viscous deformation (truly Newtonian material).
3. A mass resting on a plane with a frictional force equal to the yield limit which
prevents the movement of the block under the action of the forces below the yield
limit. This represents truly elastic deformation.
The details of various rheological models are present in Handbook on Mechanical
Properties of Rocks, Vol-3, by Lama and Vutukuri, 1978. The Viscoelastic (ve ) ,
Elastoviscoplastic (evp ) and Viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp ) are discussed briefly in this
chapter. The creep analysis for subglacial till is done for evp, Perzynas model and vevp
model. The details of these models are presented in Mechanics of Material and
Interface-The Disturbed State Concept, Desai, 2001. The following descriptions are
adopted from this book.

26
1.2 Viscoelastic (ve) Overlay Model
Consider the model in Fig.3.1 (Desai, 2001) It is required to determine four elastic
(E1 , 1; E2 , 2 ) and two viscous (1 , N 1 ) parameters. Consider the uniaxial or triaxial
loading response. Let 0 be the applied stress, which is held constant, and let t1 and t 2 be
the thickness of the unit 1 and unit 2 respectively. Then the equilibrium of forces gives
1t1 + 2 t 2 = 0 (t1 + t 2 ) (3.1)
here, t1 + t 2 = 1 . Therefore,
d 2 t d 1
= 1 (3.2)
dt t 2 dt
At, t = 0 , the dashpot is not operational; hence, the strain 0 , is given by
0 E1 0
0 = and (0 ) = (3.3)
E1t1 + E 2 t 2 E1t1 + E 2 t 2
Now with respect to unit 1
= e +d (3.4)
where e and d are the strains in the spring and the dashpot respectively, Hence
d 1 d 1
= + 1 (3.5)
dt E1 dt
where, 1 is the stress in unit 1.
With respect to unit 2,
2
= (3.6)
E2
Hence, using Eq.3.25

27
d 1 t 1 d 1
= (3.7)
dt E 2 t 2 dt
Combining Eq.3.28 and Eq.3.30, we have
1 1 t 1 d 1
+ + 1 = 0 (3.8)
E1 E 2 t 2 dt
the solution of which can be obtained as
t a
1 = 1 (0 ).e b
(3.9)
where, a = E1 E 2 t 2 , b = E1t1 + E 2 t 2 . Therefore,
E1 , 1
, N E 2 , 2
0
(a) (b) t
FIGURE- 3.1 (a) Viscoelastic Model (b) Viscoelastic Response. (Desai, 2001)
Therefore,
ta
d 1 t a
= 1 (0 ). e b
(3.10)
dt b
and from Eq.3.25
t a
d 2 E12 E 2 t1 0
= .e b
(3.11)
dt b2
Substitution of Eq.3.33 to Eq.3.30 gives

28
ta
d E12 E 2 t1 0
= .e b
(3.12)
dt b2
Integration of Eq.3.35 leads to the solution for the overlay strain, , as
ta
d E12 E 2 t1 0 0
= .e b
+ (3.13)
dt b2 E2t 2
1.3 Elastoviscoplastic (evp) Perzynas Model (1966)
Here we consider one unit, Fig.3.2, and one overlay with thickness t = 1 . The
elastic (E , ) , viscous (, N ) and y (classical plasticity) or F (HISS model) are assigned
to the spring, dashpot, and the slider, respectively.
At time t = 0 , the dashpot will not be operational; hence, the instantaneous elastic
0
strain, e = , will occur. Then, for time t > 0 , the dashpot will be operational, and
E
( )
viscoplastic strains vp , (Fig.3.12), due to the slider ( y orF ) , will remain. The final
viscoplastic strain will be equal to that from inviscid plasticity governed by the yield
function, F . The evp-type model gives the timewise variation of the plastic strains, but
the final magnitude of the viscoplastic will be equal to the plastic strain from inviscid
plasticity.
29
E ,
Unit 1
Unit 2
e
vp
, N
e
t
(a) (b)
FIGURE 3.2- (a) Perzynas Elastoviscoplastic Model (b) Elastoviscoplastic Response
(Desai, 2001)
1.4 Viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp) Model
Consider the two units in the model, (Fig.3.3), and assume two overlays, each with
thickness = 0.5 . The parameters are assigned as shown in Table 3.1. The resulting model
is shown in Fig.3.13
At time t = 0 , only the springs will deforms the dashpots are not operational. The
instantaneous elastic strain e , will be given by

e = (3.14)
E1t1 + E 2 t 2
Then, for time t > 0 , the dashpot in unit 1 will operate first, as the slider in unit 2 has
nonzero stress. This will lead to viscoelastic deformations. Now for later time t > 0 ,
30

E1 , 1
E2 , 2 e
1 , N1
ve
F ( y )
2 , N 2
e vp
t
Unit 1 Unit 2 (a) (b)
FIGURE 3.3- (a) Viscoelasticviscoplastic Model (b) Viscoelasticviscoplastic
Response. (Desai, 2001)
When the yield condition in slider 2 is reached, the dashpot in unit 2 will also
become operational.. If continuous yielding (e.g. 0 model) is considered for the slider,
both viscoelastic and viscoplastic deformation can occur simultaneously during A B .
Upon unloading, e will be recovered first, then the viscoelastic strain, ve , will be
recovered, and finally the viscoplastic strain will remain Fig.3.3(b).

31
CHAPTER 4
THE DISTURBED STATE CONCEPT
1.1 Introduction
The initial idea of this theory was introduced by Desai (2001) to characterize the
softening response of an overconsolidated soil by expressing the observed response in
terms of its response in its normally consolidated state as the reference state. This idea
was later formalized as the Disturbed State Concept (DSC) to model the behavior of
wide range of materials.
In the DSC, it is assumed that applied force causes disturbance or change in the
materials micro structure. As a result, an initially relative intact (RI) material modifies
continuously, through a process of natural self-adjustment, and a part of it approaches the
fully adjusted (FA) state at randomly distributed locations in the material. Thus, the
observed or average response can be represented in terms of the responses of the
materials in RI and FA state, which are called reference states (Fig.4.1). In this concept,
the relative intact state (RI) can be characterized as elastic, elastic- perfectly plastic, or
following any constitutive model like the Hierarchical single-surface plasticity (HISS)
model. The fully adjusted state (FA), can be assumed to imply the sate in which the
material can continue to carry the shear stress level reached up to that state under given
initial hydrostatic stress and can continue to deform in shear with constant volume; which
is called critical state.

32
The DSC, can yield to a unified material model which can be specialized to
include a wide range of material behaviors. It has been compared to nonlocalized
continuum damage model, which assumes that the observed behavior of a material at a
point is influenced by the behavior of its surroundings. If a deforming material is
composed of both continuous and discontinuous parts, then the overall behavior at a point
within the material is influenced by the continuous and discontinuous parts surrounding
these models, the behavior of a material element is a smear or weighted average of both a
continuous and discontinuous response (Desai, 2001).
RI
a Df Du
Dc
Observed
FA
D=0
FIGURE 4.1 Schematic of Stress-Strain behavior with DSC.(Desai, 2001).

33
Primary Secondary
Creep Creep

Tertiary
Creep
Permanent
Creep
FIGURE 4.2 - Schematic of Creep Behavior.
1.2 Multicomponent DSC and Overlay Model
The evp model based on Perzynas theory simulates the viscoplastic response,
particularly the time-dependent plastic response during the secondary creep regime (Fig.
4.2). However, in general, a material may experience both viscoelastic and viscoplastic
creep responses, which include creep deformation during both the primary and secondary
regimes. Hence, it is appropriate to develop and use a model that can simulate the
combination response as closely as possible. The following description is adopted from
Desai ( 2001).
34
Unit 1 Unit n
Unit 2
E1B
B
F1 , ( y1 ) B
FIGURE 4.3- Overlay model (Desai, 2001)
TABLE 4.1 Specializations of Multi-component DSC Model (Desai, 2001)
Specialization Plastic No. of Thickness Parameters

Model Overlays
Elastic (e) Von Mises 1 1 .0 E , , , N , and very high y
Maxwell Von Mises 2 0.5,0.5 E1 ,1 , 1 , N 1 , y1 = 0
E 2 , 2 , 2 , N 2 , y 2 = 0
Viscoelastic (ve) Von Mises 2 0.5,0.5 E1 ,1 , 1 , N 1 , y1 = 0
E 2 , 2 , 2 , N 2 , y 2 = very high
Elastoviscoplastic (evp) Any 1 1 .0 E , , , N ,

(Perzynas type)
Viscoelasticviscoplastic Von Mises 1 0.5 E1 ,1 , 1 , N 1 , y1 = 0
(vevp) 1 0.5
E 2 , 2 , 2 , N 2 , y 2 or F
35
Models for
component Fa
1 2 n

FIGURE 4.4 - Multi- component DSC (Desai, 2001)
In the basic DSC, an element of same material, which is composed of two
material parts in the RI and FA reference states. During deformation, the extents of the RI
and FA parts changes, which is defined through the disturbance , D . DSC for a material
element composed of more than one or two, or a higher number of, different materials. In
that case, the behavior of the component material provides reference state responses.
Then the observed stress, a , can be expressed as
A1 A A
a =1 + 2 2 + ........................... + n n (4.1)
A A A
where A1 , A2 ,........... An are the areas of the components (Desai, 2001), with total area
A = Ai (i = 1,2....n ) and 1 , 2 ,...... n are the corresponding stresses. For convenience,
we assume that the width of the material element is constant and equals b .
Eq.4.1 can be written as
a = 1 d1 + 2 d 2 + ............ n d n (4.2)
36
Ai
where d i = is the ratio of the area of component i to the total area A ; here,
A
d i = 1 . The three dimensional incremental form of Eq.4.2 can be written as
~
a
(
d = d t1 + d t 2 + ................ + d t n
~
1
~
2
~
n
) (4.3)
Eq.4.3 can now be written as

d = t1 C 1 d 1 + t 2 C 2 d 2 + t 3 C 3 d 3 + ................ + t n C n d n
a
(4.4)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
where C m (m = 1,2,....n ) are the corresponding increment strain vectors. If it is assumed

~
that the strains in all components are equal (= d ) , Eq.4.4 becomes
~
(
d = t1 C 1 + t 2 C 2 + t 3 C 3 + ................ + t n C n d
a
~ ~ ~ ~
) ~
(4.5)
or,
d = C eq d
a
(4.6)
~ ~
~
where, Ceq is the equivalent constitutive matrix for the material element. In the
~
symbolic representation of the multicomponent DSC model from Eq.4.6. Each
component unit (1,2,3,.............n ) can be characterized using elastic, viscoelastic,
Elastoviscoplastic, or any appropriate model. Thus, it can provide a hierarchical frame
work from which elastic (e ) , viscoelastic (ve ) , elastoviscoplastic (evp ) , and
viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp ) .
37
CHAPTER 5
LABORATORY CREEP EXPERIMENTS, PARAMETER
DETERMINATION AND BACK PREDICTION
1.1 Introduction
A general yield function in the hierarchical approach for constitutive modelling of
materials is used to characterize the creep behavior of Tiskilwa glacial till. A numbers of
creep tests were performed in the laboratory at different confining pressures and constant
loading conditions. The two creep parameters (fluidity parameter) and N in the model
were determined by using results available from the laboratory creep tests.
The laboratory creep tests (Fig.5.1) were performed at the constant stress
conditions. The test were performed on the Tiskilwa till specimens of height = 5.6 inch
h
and diameter = 2.8 inch ( = 2 : 1 , ASTM Standards). The creep tests were performed at
d
drained conditions, to keep the test conditions very similar to in-situ till environment.
Table 5.1 shows the creep test performed under different stress conditions. The constant
load for the creep tests were determined on the basis of the conventional triaxial
compression (CTC) tests on the till samples. The creep tests were performed at various
percentages of the peak stress of triaxial test results. The samples were extruded from the
shelby tube and then were installed in a triaxial device. The confining stress was applied
till the sample consolidates, which took about five days. Then the axial stress was
increased so that the deviatoric stress ( 1 2 ) reached the desire percentage of the peak
stress ( 1 2 ) in the triaxial test for the applied confining pressure. The axial strain was
38
recorded with the time. The sample was kept in the same stress environment till it shows
no or very little variation in the axial stain (which is normally 7- 8 days, as observed).
FIGURE 5.1 Triaxial Creep Testing Setup
TABLE 5.1 List of creep experiment performed in the laboratory at various deviatoric
stress ( 1 2 )kPa for constant confining stresses 3 (kPa ) .
3 (kPa ) 20% 40% 60% 80%
( 1 2 )kPa ( 1 2 )kPa ( 1 2 )kPa ( 1 2 )kPa
100 kPa - 1 2 -
200kPa 1 1 2 1
400kPa 1 1 1 -
39
1.2 Mechanics of Viscoplastic Solution
The mechanics of viscoplastic solution can be best explained by considering a
creep test. Consider that an undrained creep test is to be performed on a preconsolidated
sample by imposing a stress, ij , at time t = 0 + . In the creep test, the imposed stress ij is
kept constant (Fig.5.2b) for the entire duration of the test while the (creep) strains are
measured with time. The following description is adopted from Samtani and Desai (1999)
and Desai (2001).
Let FA represents the yield surface passing through point A (Fig.5.2c-1) at ijo . Let
point B (Fig.5.2c-1) represents the imposed state of stress ij which remains constant
with time and under which creep strains will be measured with time t (Fig.5.2 a). A state
of stress (such as represented by B) outside a yield surface (e.g. FA ) will generate
viscoplastic strains due to stress imbalance (in this case ij ij0 ). As time passes, the
strains (elastic+ viscoplastic) accumulate (Fig.5.2d). The accumulating viscoplastic strain
trajectories (Fig.5.4e) modifies the value of the hardening function ( ) (Fig.5.2f), and
consequently change the position of the yield surface (Fig.5.3c-2, 5.2c-3). When the load
(
increment is applied at t = 0 + the value of F is greater than zero Ft =0+ > 0 . At )
( )
sometime t t > 0 + , the material will harden and hence i < 0+ and 0 < Fi < F0+ .
Similarly, at time t = t + 1 we will have i +1 < i and 0 < Fi +1 < Fi . After a long duration
of time, F will become (almost) equal to zero (Fig.5.2g), which means that the yield
surface will pass through stress point B (Fig.5.2c-4). At this time steady state conditions
are deemed to be achieved and the displacement ceases.

40
t=0 t=
(a)
0
~
~
(b) Time
*B *B
*B *B
J 2D J 2D J 2D
J 2D
F0
(c-1) (c-2) (c-3) (c-4) J1

J1 J1 J1
d vp = d p

~ (d)
vp (e)
A
(f)
B
t
F (g)
F =0
t
FIGURE 5.2- Mechanics of Viscoplastic Solution (Samtani and Desai, 1991, Desai,
2001)
41
At time t = the solution given by the viscoplastic model tends to the solution
given by the inviscid model, e.g. the accumulated viscoplastic strains tends to the value
of the accumulated plastic strains given by the inviscid model (Desai and Zang 1987).
1.3 Results and Discussions
The triaxial laboratory creep experiments (Fig 5.3) were performed at the constant
stress conditions. The static load for the creep tests were determined from the
Conventional triaxial compression (CTC) - Undrained test performed on the till samples
previously. Creep tests were than performed at various percentages of the peak loads ( p )
calculated from the CTC tests.
Figure 5.3 Triaxial Creep Experiment

42
The Creep tests performed for 3 = 100kPa and at constant ( 1 3 )kPa as shown in
Fig.5.4 to Fig.5.7
0.008
Axial Strain .
0.0015
0.006
Axial Strain
0.001
0.004 0.0005
3 =100.0 kPa
B B
0
1- 3 = 42.4 kPa
0.002 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
B B B B
Time (min)
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)
FIGURE 5.4- Axial stress-strain results for constant 3 = 100kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 106kPa )
0.01
0.008 0.002
Axial Strain .
Axial Strain
0.0015
0.006
3 =100.0 kPa
B B
0.001
1- 3 =63.6 kPa 0.0005
0.004
B B B B
0
0.002 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Time (min)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (min)
Figure 5.5- Axial stress-strain results for constant 3 = 100kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 106kPa )
43
Figure 5.6- Creep specimen after the test was performed for 3 = 100kPa and constant
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 106kPa )
0.01
.
0.008
.
0.002
Axial Strain
0.006 0.0015
Axial Strain
3 =100.0 kPa 0.001

0.004
B B
1- 3=63.6 kPa
B B B B
0.0005
0
0.002 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Time (min)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 106kPa ) (Independent test)
44
The axial strain recorded for the test done at ( 1 3 ) = 42.2kPa (Fig.5.4) at 1
sec, 5 sec and 10 sec are 0.0002, 0.00035 and 0.0004 respectively. There is no change in
axial strain rate after 4000 min.
The value of axial strain rate at t = 0 was 0.01561.The axial strain recorded for
the test done at ( 1 3 ) = 63.6kPa (Fig.5.5) at 5 sec, 10 sec and 15 sec were 0.0016,
0.00148 and 0.00130 respectively. The strain rate (Fig.5.8) decreases sharply to
0.000733, 0.000234 and 2.44E-05 in 10 sec, 15 min and 30 min. The stain rate decreases
gradually and the values recorded at 2000 min was 2.14E10-7 . No appreciable change in
stain rate was recorded after 4000 min. One Independent test (Fig.5.7) is also performed
for validation purpose.
0.0008
Strain Rate (/min)
0.0006
3 =100.0 kPa
B B
1- 3= 63.6 kPa
0.0004
B B B B
0.0002
0
1 10 100 1000
ln(t) (min)
Figure 5.8- Time vs. Strain rate for constant 3 = 100kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 106kPa )
45
The Creep tests performed for 3 = 200kPa and at constant ( 1 3 )kPa as shown in
Fig.5.9 to Fig.5.17
0.0025
.
0.002
.
0.00003
0.000024
0.0015
Axial Strain
0.000018
Axial Strain
0.000012
0.001 3 =200.0 kPa
0.000006
0
B B
1- 3=37.0 kPa
B B B B
0.0005 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Time (min)
0
0 4000 8000 12000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
Figure 5.10- Creep specimen after the test was performed for constant 3 = 200kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
46
0.016
.
.
0.005
0.012 0.004
0.003
Axial Strain
Axial Strain
0.002
0.008
3 =200.0 kPa
B B
0.001
1- 3=74.0 kPa
B B B B
0
0.004 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Time (min)
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
47
0.035
. 0.030
.
0.025 0.015
Axial Strain
0.020 0.01
Axial Strain
3 =200.0 kPa 0.005

0.015
B B
1- 3 =111.0 kPa
0
B B B B
0.010 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

0.005 Time (min)
0.000
0 1000 2000 3000
Time (min)
Figure 5.13 Axial stress-strain results for constant 3 = 200kPa and

( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
48
. 0.032
0.028
0.024
3 =200.0 kPa
0.02
B B
1 =111.0 kPa
B B
Axial Strain
0.016
0.012
0.008
0.004
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Time (min)
Figure 5.15- Axial stress-strain results for constant 3 = 200kPa
and ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 185kPa ) (Independent test)
0.08
.
0.02
Axial Strain .
0.06
0.015
0.01
0.04
Axial Strain
3 =200.0 kPa
B B
0.005
1- 3 =148.0 kPa
0
B B B B
0.02 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Time (min)
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.8 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
49
( 1 3 ) = 0.8 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
3.0E-05
Strain Rate (/min) .
2.5E-05
2.0E-05
3 =200.0 kPa
1.5E-05 B B
1- 3=37.0 kPa
B B B B
1.0E-05
5.0E-06
0.0E+00
1 10 100 1000 10000
ln (t) (min)
Figure-5.18 Time vs. Strain rate for constant 3 = 200kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
50
the test done at ( 1 3 ) = 0.2kPa (Fig.5.9) at 5 sec, 30 sec and 1 min were 1.8254E-05,
3.6507E-05 and 5.4761E-05 respectively. The stain rate (Fig.5.18) decreases gradually
and the values recorded at 450 min, 2500 min and 12000 min were 5.18E-07, 2.66E-07
and 2.70E-08 respectively. There was very less change in strain rate after 13000 min
The axial strain rate at t = 0 was 0.1947. The axial strain recorded for the
test done at ( 1 3 ) = 0.4kPa (Fig.5.11) at 1sec, 2 sec, 5 sec and 10 sec were
0.003245, 0.003446, 0.003920 and 0.004121 respectively. The strain rate (Fig.5.17)
decreases gradually to 0.009481, 0.001750 and 0.000656, in 5 sec, 30 sec and 1 min. The
stain rate decreases gradually and the values recorded at 60 min, 500 min and 2000 min
were 5, 1.77E-05 and 1.21E-06 and 1.78754E-07 respectively. There was very little
change in strain rate after 4000 min.
0.001
Strain Rate (/min)
0.0008
3 =200.0 kPa
0.0006
B B
1- 3 =74.0 kPa
B B B B
0.0004
0.0002
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
t (min)
Figure-5.19 Time vs. Strain rate for constant 3 = 200kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
51
The axial strain recorded for the test done at ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa
(Fig.5.13, Fig.5.14) at 1 sec, 2 sec, 5 sec and 10sec 0.00823, 0.01057, 0.01148 and
0.01285 respectively. The value of axial strain rate at t = 0 was 0.4936. The strain rate
(Fig.5.20) decreases sharply to 0.01173, 0.000124, and 3.41E-05 in 10 sec, 10 min and 60
min. The stain rate decreases gradually and the values recorded at 100 min, 250 min and
600 min were 1.24E-05, 4.46E-06 and 2.34E-07 respectively. There was very little
0.0015
0.0012
3 =200.0 kPa
0.0009
B B
1- 3 =111.0 kPa
B B B B
0.0006
0.0003
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
ln (t) (min)
Figure 5.20-Time vs. Strain rate for constant 3 = 200kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
52
0.01
0.008
3 =200.0 kPa
0.006 B
B
B
1- 3 =148.0 kPa
B B B
0.004
0.002
0
1 10 100 1000
ln (t) (min)
FIGURE 5.21- Time vs. Strain rate for constant 3 = 200kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.8 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
The axial strain recorded for the test done at ( 1 3 ) = 0.8kPa (Fig.5.16 ) at 1
sec, 2 sec, 5 sec and 10sec 0.00426, 0.00834, 0.01418 and 0.01964 respectively. The
axial strain rate at t = 0 was 0.2559. The strain rate (Fig.5.21) decreases sharply to
0.0437, 0.0107 and 0.000572 in 10 sec, 1min and 10 min. respectively. The strain rate in
2000min was 1.63E-07. There was very less change in strain rate after 1000 min.
53
0.0025
0.002
.
.
0.0002
Axial Strain
0.00015
0.0015
Axial Strain
3 =400.0 kPa 0.0001

0.00005
B B
1- 3 =50.0 kPa
0.001
B B B B
0.0005 0 0 0 0
Time (min)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
0.008
.
0.006 0.0015
Axial Strain
0.001
Axial Strain
0.004 3 =400.0 kPa

B B
0.0005
1- 3=500.0 kPa
0
B B B B
0.002 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Time (min)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
54
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
0.008
.
0.0008
0.006
0.0006
Axial Strain
Axial Strain
0.0004
0.004
0.0002
3 =400.0 kPa
0
B B
1- 3=550.0 kPa
0.002 B B B B
0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Time (min)
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)

( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
55
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
2.0E-04
.
Strain Rate (/min)
1.5E-04 3 =400.0 kPa

B B
1- 3=50.0 kPa
B B B B
1.0E-04
5.0E-05
0.0E+00
1 10 100 1000 10000
ln (t) (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
56
The axial strain recorded for the test done at ( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa (Fig.5.22) at 1
sec, 5 sec and 15 sec 0.000146, 0.000182 and 0.0002 respectively. The value of axial
strain rate (Fig.5.27) at t = 0 was 0.00875. The strain rate decreases gradually to 7.96E-
05, 6.08E-06 and 1.82E-07 in 10 min, 30 min and 1500 min. There was very less change
in strain rate after 7000 min.
the test done at ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa (Fig.5.23 ) at 1 sec, 2 sec, 5 sec and 10 sec 0.0032,
0.0058, 0.0066 and 0.0069 respectively. The strain rate (Fig.5.28) decreases sharply to
0.0001643, 1.52E-05 and 2.19E-07 in 1 min, 60 min and 4000 min. There was negligible
0.0002
.
Strain Rate (/min)
0.00015
3 =400.0 kPa
0.0001
B B
1- 3=100.0 kPa
B B B B
0.00005
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
ln(t) (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
57
0.0003

0.00025
0.0002
0.00015 3 =400.0 kPa
B B
1- 3=150.0 kPa
0.0001 B B B B
0.00005
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
ln (t) (min)
FIGURE 5.29-Time vs. Strain rate for constant 3 = 400kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
The axial strain recorded for the test done at ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa (Fig.5.25) at
sec, 2 sec, 5 sec and 10 sec 0.0004, 0.000637 and 0.000692 respectively. The value of
axial strain rate at t = 0 was 0.01202. The strain rate (Fig.5.29) decreases sharply to
0.0001639, 2.41E-05 and 6.07E-07 in 1 min, 40 min and 1100 min. There was negligible
Fig.5.30 shows the plot of time vs. axial strain for the tests performed
for 3 = 100kPa for 0.4. p kPa and 0.6. p kPa . The axial strain for 0.6. p kPa is higher
than 0.4. p kPa for same time interval. The value of elastic modulus (E ) calculated from
CTC test for 3 = 100kPa is 33373kPa . The comparison between the calculated and
observed value of strains are shown in Table 5.2. It can be inferred that the total strain
recorded up to 10 sec is elastic strain. The plasticity growth in the samples had started
after 10 sec.
58
0.01
. 0.008
0.006
Axial Strain
0.004 60% 40%

0.002
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)

( 1 3 ) = x. p kPa ( p = 106kPa ) (x= 0.4 and 0.6)
Table 5.2- The observed and calculated values of strains from creep test and CTC for
3 = 100kPa
( 1 3 )kPa i (Observed) at t = 10 sec e (Calculated from CTC)

0.4 p = 42.4 0.0013 0.00125
0.6 p = 63.6 0.0018 0.0018
Fig.5.31 shows the plot of axial strain and time for the tests performed
at 3 = 200kPa for 0.2. p kPa , 0.4. p kPa , 0.6. p kPa and 0.8. p kPa . The comparison
between the calculated and observed value of strains are shown in Table 5.3. The value of
elastic modulus (E ) calculated from CTC test for 3 = 200kPa is 44044kPa . The
comparison between the calculated and observed value of strain are shown in Table 5.3.
It can be inferred that the plasticity has started before 10 sec during the creep test.
59
0.08
.
0.06
20% 40% 60% 80%
Axial Strain
0.04
0.02
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = x. p kPa ( p = 185kPa ) (x=0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8)
3 = 200kPa
( 1 3 )kPa i (Observed) at t = 10 sec e (Calculated from CTC)

0.2 p = 37 2.8254E-05 0.00084
0.4 p = 74 0.004121 0.00168
0.6 p = 111 0.01285 0.00252
0.8 p = 148 0.01964 0.00336
Fig.5.32 shows the plot of axial strain and time for the tests performed
at 3 = 400kPa for 0.2. p kPa , 0.4. p kPa and 0.6. p kPa . The comparison between the
calculated and observed value of strains are shown in Table 5.4 The value of elastic
modulus (E ) calculated from CTC test for 3 = 400kPa is 80000kPa . The comparison
60
between the calculated and observed value of strain are as shown in the Table 5.4, it can
be inferred that the plasticity has started before 10 sec during the creep test.
0.008
.
0.006
40% 60% 20%

Axial Strain
0.004
0.002
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = x. p kPa ( p = 250kPa ) (x=0.2, 0.4 and 0.6)
3 = 400kPa
( 1 3 )kPa t (Observed) at t = 10 sec e (Calculated from CTC)
0.2 p = 50 0.000192 0.000625
0.4 p = 100 0.001259 0.00125
0.6 p = 150 0.000692 0.00187
The instantaneous strain t is calculated by assuming that it has occurred approximately
after t= 10 sec. This was adopted from the creep test data as shown in the Table 5.2, 5.3
and 5.4. Elastic strain was computed approximately for t= 10 sec by dividing
61
( 1 3 )kPa applied in the creep test by the Elastic Modulus (E). The Elastic Modulus
(E) is calculated from the CTC tests. The values of elastic strain can be constant. The two
values are included in 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 for 100 kPa, 200 kPa and 400 kPa confining
pressure respectively.
It is difficult to measure the instantaneous strain i . Hence, it is approximately
adopted after 10 sec. However, for some tests e and i at 10 sec do not correlate well.
Then it may be appropriate to consider i for less than 10 sec.
0.015
0.012
Axial Strain
0.009
400kPa 200kPa
0.006
0.003
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time (min)
Figure 5.33- Axial stress-strain results for constant 3 and ( 1 3 ) = 0.2. p kPa
62
. 0.015
0.012
0.009
Axial Strain
0.006
0.003 100kPa 200kPa 400kPa
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)
0.03
0.025
Axial Strain .
0.02
100kPa 200kPa 400kPa
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Time (min)
63
The values of elastic strain ( e ) calculated from CTC for 3 = 100kPa, 200kPa and
400kPa are 0.00127, 0.00168 and 0.00125 respectively. The calculated values correlated
quite well with the plots in Fig.5.33, Fig.5.34 and Fig.5.35.
1.4 Determination of Viscous Parameters
The following description is adopted from Samtani and Desai (1999) and Desai (2001).
In the Perzynas theory (Perzyna, 1966), the total strain tensor, ij , is decomposed into an
elastic part, ije , and a viscoplastic part , ijvp , as follows:
ij = ijvp + ije (5.1)
where,
1
ije = C ijkl
e
ilvp (5.2)
d ijvp F Q
= < > (5.3)
dt F0 ij
1 d ijvp
e
C ijkl , is the elastic tensor, is the inelastic strain rate tensor, is a material
dt
parameter (fluidity parameter) and is a function of F. Here F is the yield function and
Q is the potential function; for associative plasticity Q F . The angle bracket <> has the
meaning of switch-on off operator as follows.
F F F
< >=< >, if > 0 (5.4)
F
F0 F0 0
F F
and, < >= 0 , if 0 (5.5)
F0 F0
64
Squaring both sides we get,
2 2
d ijvp
= [ < >]2 Q (5.6)
dt
ij
Eq.5.6 can be rewritten as
2 2
1 d ij
= [ < >]2 1 Q

vp
(5.7)
2 dt
2 ij

The LHS is the second invariant of the inelastic strain- rate tensor, we have
2
dI 2vp 1 d ij
vp
= (5.8)
dt 2 dt

Thus, we can rewrite Eq.5.7 as
2
dI 2vp 2 1
Q
= [ < >] (5.9)
dt 2 ij
or,
dI 2vp
< >= dt (5.10)
1 Q Q
2 ij ij
Eq.5.10 is the general equation for creep experiments using Perzynas theory.
In general, Q = Q(J1 , J 2, D , J 3 D ) which, means that
Q Q Q Q 2
= ij + Sij + Sik S kj J 2 D ij (5.11)
ij J1 J 2 D J 3 D 3
Depending upon the condition of the test Eq.5.11 can either be utilized in the full
or only the dominant term can be considered.

65
dI 2vp
Let, a= dt (5.12)
1 Q Q
2 ij ij
Thus, we can write Eq.5.10 as,
< >= a (5.13)
The value of a is known from the experiments. In the creep test with constant
dI 2vp Q
stress, is found by measuring the visco-plastic strain (Eq.5.8). The gradient
dt ij
Q
can be calculated using Eq.5.11. Although ij is constant, the value will change as
ij
Q changes with increasing viscoplastic strain (hardening).
The choice of flow function < > , depends upon the experimental data. Since
F F
< > involves some function of , a plot of vs. a is required. Fig. shows a
F0 F0
schematic of such a plot. An appropriate function can be found to fit the curve by plotting
the experimental data in different spaces. Two commonly used functions are discussed
next.
1.5 General Procedure
The procedure for finding the viscous parameters and N was described by Samtani,
(1991).
1. Calculate J 1 , J 2 D before the application of the creep stress, ij . Thus, these J 1 ,
J 2 D would correspond to point A at t =0. (Fig.5.2a, c-1). Since, point A
represents steady state equilibrium condition under the present (consolidation)

66
stress, the yield surface passing through point A will be represented by F = 0 .
Find the value of ( =A) (Fig.5.2f) corresponding to this state of stress.

B B
2. Calculate J 1 , J 2 D after the application of the creep stress, ij at t =0+. These J 1 ,

P P
J 2 D would correspond to point B (Fig.5.2c-1) since the creep stress will remain
unchanged. At t = point B (Fig.5.2c-4) will be captured and the value of the
yield function will be F=0. Find the value of (=B) (Fig.5.2f) corresponding to
B B
this state of stress.
3. Calculate ( vp )A and ( vp )B using the hardening law determined from inviscid
plasticity analysis (e.g. the hyperbolic law, =

a1
1
) with vp = (d )(d ) .
vp vp
vp
ij ji
The trajectory of the viscoplastic strains is a function of time. Thus at time t= 0,
vp = ( vp )A and at time t= , vp = ( vp )B .
dI 2vp
4. Build a table containing vp , (t ) , F (t ) and = dt . Note that at
1 Q Q
2 ij ij
t= , vp = ( vp )B , = B and F = 0 .
F F F
5. Plot and on various different spaces. e.g. ln versus ln( ) .
F0 F0 F0
versus which would respectively yield the power law and the exponential law
for flow function.
6. Perform the regression analysis on the various spaces and select the space which
gives the best regression analysis, select the law corresponding to the selected
space and determine the fluidity parameter and the material parameter N . Note
67
that the material parameter N is dimensionless while the fluidity parameter has
the dimension of stress 1time 1 .
1.6 Material Parameters for Perzynas (evp) Model
There are two parameters, and N or N , that need to be determined from
appropriate laboratory tests as shown in Fig. . According to Perzynas theory, the total
strain, & , can be decomposed as
& = & e + & vp (5.14)

~ ~ ~
where,
& = C& & e (5.15)

~ ~ ~
or
& = C (e )1 & (5.15)

~ ~ ~
dQ
& vp = < > (5.16)
~ d
~
where, is the stress vector, C is the elastic constitutive matrix for isotropic
e
~ ~
matrix for material, Q is the plastic potential function; Q F for associative plasticity.
Squaring both sides of Eq.5.16 and multiplying them by 1 leads to

2
T
F
2 F
2
( )
1 vp T vp
& &
1
= ( < > )
2

(5.17)
~ ~
or
68
T
F
1 2 F
I&2vp = ( < > ) (5.18)
2
~ ~
where I&2vp is the second invariant of the viscoplastic strain rate tensor, & . Therefore,
vp
~
2 I&2vp
< >= T
=a (5.19)
F F

~ ~
The flow function by the power law is given by
N
F
= (5.20)
F0
Now Eq.5.20 is written as
N
F
=a (5.21)
F0
Therefore,
F
ln ( ) + N ln = ln (a ) (5.22)
F0
F
Plot of a vs. is shown schematically in Fig.5.36. The slope of the average
F0
F
straight line gives N , and the intercept when = 1 gives . Other forms of flow
F0
function are possible, e.g., the exponential form is given by
N
F
= exp 1.0 (5.23)
F0
Then the Eq.5.22 leads to

69
N
F
ln ( ) + N ln = ln (a ) (5.24)
F0
ln (a )
N
ln
ln F
F0
FIGURE 5.36 Determination of Creep Parameter (Desai, 2001)
ln(F/pa)
0
-2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
3 =100.0 kPa
-4 B
B
B
1- 3= 63.6 kPa
B B B
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
Figure 5.37-Determination of creep parameters from stress-strain results for constant
3 = 100kPa and ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 106kPa )
70
The values of N and are calculated using the general procedure described by
N
F
Samtani, (1991). The Fig.5.37 to Fig.5.39 shows the plot of ln ( ) vs. ln . The
F0
slope of the curve gives the value of N and the y intercept gives the value of ln ( ) .
ln(F/pa)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
-2
3 =200.0 kPa
B B
-4 1- 3 = 70.72 kPa
B B B B
-6
-8
-10
-12
Figure 5.38- Determination of creep parameters from stress-strain results for constant
3 = 200kPa and ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
71
ln(F/pa)
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
-2
3 =200.0 kPa
-4 B
B
B
1- 3 =104.58 kPa
B B B
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
Figure 5.39- Determination of creep parameters from stress-strain results for constant
3 = 200kPa and ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
TABLE 5.5- Values of creep parameters at constant axial stress 1 (kPa ) for various
confining stresses 3 (kPa ) .
3 (kPa ) 20% 1 (kPa ) 40% 1 (kPa ) 60% 1 (kPa ) 80% 1 (kPa )
(
kPa 1 min 1 ) N (
kPa 1 min 1 ) N (
kPa 1 min 1 ) N (
kPa 1 min 1 ) N
100kPa - - 6.23E-08 1.34 7.6028E-06 2.16 - -
200kPa 2.356E-06 1.203 9.782E-06 1.506 3.421E-05 2.068 5.843E-05 3.208
400kPa 8.453E-05 1.221 6.450E-05 1.260 4.620E-04 1.540 - -

72
TABLE 5.6- Average values of creep parameters at constant axial stress 1 (kPa ) for
various confining stresses 3 (kPa ) .
3 (kPa ) (
Average kPa 1 min 1 ) (kPa min ) (Pa s ) NAverage
B B
100kPa 3.83E-06 2.61E+05 1.57E+10 1.75
200kPa 2.62E-05 3.82E+04 2.29E+09 1.996
400kPa 2.04E-04 4.90E+04 2.94E+08 1.340
( )
The fluidity parameter kPa 1 min 1 is the inverse of viscosity (Pa s ) . The value of
viscosity from Table 2.1 and Table 2.3 shows good correlation with the observed values
(Table 5.6). The slight difference in the value of the viscosity may be due to the change
in till composition and hence change in physico- mechanical behavior at various
locations.
4
0.0094x
y = 0.8214e
3 2
R = 0.9769
2
N
0
0 40 80 120 160
Deviatoric stress (kPa)
FIGURE 5.40.- Variation of N with ( 1 3 ) kPa for 3 = 200kPa .
73
8.0E-05 2
y = 4E-09x - 7E-08x - 5E-07
Fluidity Parameter . 2
R = 0.9912
6.0E-05
4.0E-05
2.0E-05
0.0E+00
0 40 80 120 160
FIGURE 5.41- Variation of with ( 1 3 ) kPa for 3 = 200kPa .
The values of N and increase for 3 = 200kPa with the increase in the value
of deviatoric stress ( 1 3 ) (Fig.5.40, Fig.5.41).The minimum value of N calculated
from the trend is 1.08 at ( 1 3 ) 29kPa . Similarly, minimum value of is negative
at ( 1 3 ) 8.75kPa .
The values of N and increases for 3 = 400kPa with the increase in the value
of deviatoric stress ( 1 3 ) (Fig.5.42 and Fig.5.43). The minimum value
of N calculated from the trend is 1.01 at ( 1 3 ) 65kPa . Similarly, minimum value of
is 5.0 E 04 at ( 1 3 ) 62.5kPa .
74
2.0
1.5
1.0
N
2
0.5 y = 5E-05x - 0.0065x + 1.423
0.0
0 40 80 120 160
FIGURE 5.42- Variation of N with ( 1 3 ) kPa at 3 = 400kPa .
6.0E-04 2
y = 8E-08x - 1E-05x + 0.0005
Fluidity Parameter .
4.0E-04
2.0E-04
0.0E+00
0 40 80 120 160
FIGURE 5.43- Variation of with ( 1 3 ) kPa at 3 = 400kPa .

75
1.7 Back-prediction of Creep Tests
Due to specific forms of the stress and strain tensor representing the tests it is
possible to analytically back predict the creep tests. The procedure for back prediction of
creep test was described step by step for a particular time interval by Samtani, (1991).
1. Choose the same time interval as selected during the creep test. Knowing the
F
state of stress, find for the particular time interval, t.
F0
2. Knowing , N and from the flow function, determine the value of a. For the
Tiskilwa till we have,

N
F
a = (5.25)
F0
3. We can write the axial strain as
1 Q Q
& = 2a (5.26)
2 ij ij
4. Determine the magnitude of strain as follows,
d
i +1 = (t i +1 t i ) + i (5.27)
dt i +1
d
Where, is known from Eq.5.27, (ti +1 ti ) is the time step t is known from
dt i +1
step 1 and i is known from previous time step.
5. By starting from the known condition of i =0 when t=0, and repeating from step
1 to step 4, the creep test can be back-predicted.
Fig. 5.40 to Fig. 5.54 shows the back-prediction of the creep tests using the HISS
parameter obtained from the CTC tests. The HISS and DSC parameters were calculated
76
by CTC undrained test for 3 = 100 kPa, 200 kPa and 400 kPa (Shantanu, 2005). The
average value of creep parameters were used for all three confining pressures. The
parameter were used in one dimensional program for the prediction and validation of
laboratory experiments and later (Chapter-4) used in DSC- SST2D program for the
similar purpose. The average values of creep parameters (Table. 5.6) are used for back
prediction.
Table 5.7- HISS and DSC parameters for 3 = 100kPa (Sane, 2005)
Elastic HISS Hardening

Parameters Parameters Parameters
E 33733 kPa 0.01648 a1 1.29E-07

0.4 0.3344 1 1.4
Disturbance Parameters R 35.342 kPa

Du 1.0 m -0.5
A 15.89 n 3.6
Z 2.08
Note- p a = 101.235 kPa, 0 =0 and S r =1

77
0.01
0.008
.
3 =100.0 kPa
0.006
B B
Axial Strain
1- 3= 42.4 kPa
B B B B
0.004
Back prediction Experiment
0.002
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (min)
Figure 5.44- Back prediction of stress-strain results for constant 3 = 100kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 106kPa )
0.01
0.008
Axial Strain
3 =100.0 kPa
0.006
B B
1- 3 = 63.6 kPa
B B B B
0.004
Experimental Backprediction
0.002
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 106kPa )
78
The back predictions by the one -dimensional procedure for 3 = 100kPa are
shown in Fig.5.44 to Fig.5.46. The back predictions for both cases show satisfactory
results.
The back prediction value is higher than the experimental for
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa (Fig.5.44).
The back prediction for ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa (Fig.5.45) shows increase in strain
rate after 4000 min. The elastic strain value from the back prediction is higher as
compared to experimental value. This may be due to neglecting the effect of stain value
in the other two directions for one-dimensional procedure.
0.01
.
0.008
0.006
Axial Strain
3 =100.0 kPa
B B
0.004 1- 3 = 63.6 kPa

B B B B

0.002
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (min)
79
The validation by the one dimensional procedure for 3 = 200kPa is shown in
Fig.5.47- Fig.5.51.The one dimensional procedure provides good results as compared to
the experimental result.
Table-5.8- HISS and DSC parameters for 3 = 200kPa (Sane, 2005)

E 44044 kPa 0.01648 a1 1.15E-08
0.4 0.5691 1 1.4
Du 1.0 m -0.5
A 15.89 n 3.6
Z 2.08
Note- p a = 101.235 kPa, 0 =0 and S r =1
0.0025
0.002
.
0.0015 3 =200.0 kPa

B B
1- 3 =34.85 kPa
Axial Strain
B B B B
0.001

0.0005
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
80
. 0.018
0.015
0.012
3 =200.0 kPa
Axial Strain
B B
0.009 1- 3 =72.72 kPa

B B B B
0.006
0.003
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
0.04
.
0.03
Axial Strain
0.02
3 =200.0 kPa
B B
1- 3 =104.58 kPa
B B B B
0.01
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
81
0.04
.
0.03
Axial Strain
3 =200.0 kPa
B B
0.02 1- 3 =104.58 kPa

B B B B
0.01 Back prediction Experiment
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (min)
0.1
0.08
.
0.06
Axial Strain
3 =200.0 kPa
B B
1- 3 = 139.40 kPa
0.04
B B B B

0.02
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.8 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
82
The back prediction for ( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa (Fig.5.47) shows satisfactory results
in the elastic range. The back prediction values of strain are higher after 500 min to 4000
min. The values of strains are similar after 4500 min. The back prediction gives higher
values of strain for other three cases (Fig.5.48, Fig.5.49 and Fig.5.51). The strain rate is
also higher for the given value of time interval. This is due to neglecting the strains in
other two directions. The strain rate increases for long time interval.
The validation by the one dimensional procedure for 3 = 200kPa is shown in
Fig.5.50. The one dimensional procedure provides good results as compared to the
experimental result expect for the time t > 1500 min the values predicted by the one
dimensional procedure gives high value as compared to Independent creep test.
Table 5.9- HISS and DSC parameters for 3 = 400kPa (Sane, 2005)

E 80000 kPa 0.01648 a1 2.10E-09
0.4 0.5691 1 1.2
Du 1.0 m -0.5
A 15.89 n 3.6
Z 2.08
Note- p a = 101.235 kPa, 0 =0 and S r =1

83
0.0028
. 0.0024
0.002
0.0016 3 =400.0 kPa
Axial Strain
B B
1- 3 =50.0 kPa
0.0012 B B B B
0.0008
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (min)
Figure 5.52- Back prediction of stress-strain results for 3 = 400kPa and constant
( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
0.008
.
0.006
3 =400.0 kPa
Axial Strain
B B
1- 3 =100.0 kPa
0.004
B B B B
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
84
0.0088
.
0.0066
3 =400.0 kPa
Axial Strain
B B
1- 3 =150.0 kPa
0.0044 B B B B
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
The back predictions by the one -dimensional procedure for 3 = 400kPa are
shown in Fig.5.52 to Fig.5.54. The back predictions for all cases show satisfactory
results.
The back prediction for ( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa (Fig.5.52) shows high value of
strain in the elastic range. The back prediction values of strain are lower after 400 min to
5000 min. The back prediction gave higher value of strain after 5000 min.
The back prediction curves give similar trend for other two cases (Fig.5.53 and
Fig.5.54). The values of strain are higher after 4500 min. The reason for it may be
neglecting the strains in other two directions. The strain rate also increases for long time
interval.
85
1.8 Material Parameters in Overlay Model
The parameters in the Overlay models are determined from the triaxial creep test
performed in the laboratory. The following procedure to determine the creep parameters
for Viscoelastic model and Viscoelasticviscoplastic model is adopted from Desai (2001).
1.8.1 Viscoelastic (ve) Overlay Model
Consider the model in Fig. . It is required to determine four elastic (E1 , 1; E2 , 2 )
and two viscous (1 , N 1 ) parameters. They can be obtained from the following simplified
procedure.
For t = 0 . Eq. gives,
0
0 = (5.28)
E1t1 + E 2 t 2
As, t , Eq. gives the ultimate strain, u , as
0
u = (5.29)
E2t 2
The values of 0 and u can be obtained from the measured response. The later can be
adopted as an asymptotic value. Then the solution of Eq. provides the values of E1 and
d
E 2 .Now the gradient of (0) at t = 0 can be measured approximately from stress-
dt
strain curve as
d
(0) t +1 t (5.30)
dt t 0
where, t +1 and t are the values of strains near t = 0 , and t is a small time step.
Substitution of Eq. in Eq. gives

86
d E12 t1 0
(0) = (5.31)
dt (E1t1 + E 2 t 2 )2
Substituting of the E1 and E 2 computed above in Eq. gives the value of .
The values of 1 and 2 can be found by the relation (Desai, 2001)
1 E1 1 E
1 = 1 and 2 = 1 2 (5.32)
2 3K 2 3K
where,
1
K= (5.33)
3 1
1.8.2 Viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp) Overlay Model
The model parameters are as shown in Fig. Assume that the significant
viscoplastic strains will not occur during earlier times. This will approximately be the
situation be the situation if the irreversible strains do not occur until the yield stress, y ,
in the slider is exceeded. In that case, parameter (E1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , E 2 , 2 ) can be adopted to
be same as those of the viscoelastic model. The parameter 2 , 2 and y (F ) can be
adopted to be same as those for the elastoviscoplastic (evp) Perzynas model.

87
CHAPTER 6
COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DSC AND FINITE
ELEMENT ANALYSIS
1.1 Introduction
The DSC has been implemented into two- dimensional Finite Element computer
program DSC-SST2D (Desai, 2001 & Desai, 1999). A brief formulation of the Finite
Element equation and a description is given below.
1.2 Results and Discussions
DSC_SST2D program is developed by Desai and his co-workers for static
problems. The values of the parameter for evp and vevp model were used to make the
data file for DSC_SST2D finite element program (Desai, 1999). This program is used to
study and analyze the effectiveness of the constitutive model. The results from the
program are compared with the experimental observations. Fig.6.4 to Fig. 6.27 shows the
plot of DSC- vevp Overlay model and compares them with the experimental results.
Fig.6.4 to Fig.6.27 shows the results from the DSC-vevp Overlay models using the
HISS, disturbance and creep parameters obtained from the CTC tests. The HISS and DSC
parameters were calculated by CTC- Undrained test and creep parameters were obtained
from triaxial drained creep tests.

88
0.01
0.008
.
0.006 3 =100.0 kPa

Axial Strain
B B
1- 3 = 42.4 kPa
B B B B
0.004
0.002 FEM_vevp Experiment FEM_evp
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (min)
Figure 6.4 - Finite element prediction of stress-strain results for constant 3 = 100kPa
and ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 106kPa )
0.01
0.008
.
0.006
Axial Strain
3 =100.0 kPa
B B
0.004 1- 3 = 63.6 kPa

B B B B
0.002 Experiment FEM_vevp FEM_evp
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time (min)
Figure 6.5 - Finite element prediction of stress-strain results for constant 3 = 100kPa
and ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 106kPa )
89
Fig.6.4 and Fig.6.5 shows the predictions by the DSC- vevp overlay model and
DSC- evp overlay model for 3 = 100kPa . The value for strain predicted is little less at
the initial stage but matches well with the experimental results.
The plot for ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa (Fig.6.4) shows a good correlation between
the experimental and vevp model results. The evp model predicts lower values initially
and higher values of strain after t > 3000 min . The strain rate by vevp model is almost
equal to experimental results for similar time interval.
The plot for ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa (Fig.6.5) shows a good comparison between
the vevp overlay model and experimental results. The evp model underestimates the
values of strain but shows increasing trend. The values of strain predicted by the vevp
model are little bit higher for long time range than for short time.
0.0030
0.0025
.
0.0020
Axial Strain
0.0015 3 =200.00 kPa

B B
1- 3 =34.85 kPa
B B B B
0.0010
0.0005 FEM_vevp Experiment FEM_evp
0.0000
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
Time (min)
Figure 6.6- Finite element prediction of stress-strain results for constant 3 = 200kPa
and ( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
90
Fig.6.6 to Fig.6.9 shows the predictions by the DSC-creep vevp overlay model
for 3 = 200kPa . The prediction results by the model are very close to the experimental
values.
The plot for ( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa (Fig.6.6) shows a good correlation between
the experimental and vevp model prediction. The values of strain predicted are almost
similar to the experimental results. The strain rate is almost equal to experimental results
for all time intervals and shows the similar trend. The evp model predicts fewer values of
strains initially but the values are higher for t > 12000 .
0.018
0.015
Axial Strain .
3 =200.00 kPa
0.012 B
B
B
1- 3 =70.72 kPa
B B B
0.009
0.006
0.003 Experimental FEM_vevp FEM_evp
0.000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (min)
Fig 6.7- Finite element prediction of stress-strain results for constant 3 = 200kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
91
0.035
0.03
.
0.025
Axial Strain
0.02 3 =200.00 kPa

B B
1- 3 =104.58 kPa
B B B B
0.015
0.01
0.005 Experiment FEM_vevp FEM_evp
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
0.08
0.06
Axial Strain .
3 =200.00 kPa
0.04 B
B
B
1- 3 =139.40 kPa
B B B
0.02
Experiment FEM_vevp FEM_evp
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (min)
( 1 3 ) = 0.8 p kPa ( p = 185kPa )
92
The plot for ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa (Fig.6.7) shows a good correlation between the
experimental and vevp model prediction. The values of strain predicted by the model are
little less initially up to 2000 min. The model predicts the results quite well later. The
strain rate shows similar trend for all time interval. The strain values by evp model
shows lower values up to 2000 min and later the values are higher than experimental
results.
The plot for ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa (Fig.6.8) compares good with the experimental
results. Very less or no error is observed at any time. The strain rate also shows good
correlation with the experimental values. The evp model predicts lower values of strains
up to 1500 min and later shows increase in the values of strains.
The plot for ( 1 3 ) = 0.8 p kPa (Fig.6.9) compares good with the experimental
results. The values of strain are almost similar initially up to 300 min. The strain values
are little higher than the experimental results. The strain rate also shows good correlation
with the experimental values at any time interval.

93
. 0.0025
0.002
0.0015 3 =400.00 kPa

Axial Strain
B B
1- 3 =50.00 kPa
B B B B
0.001
0.0005 Experiment FEM_vevp
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)
and ( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
0.008
0.006
Axial Strain .
3 =400.00 kPa
0.004
B B
1- 3 =100.00 kPa
B B B B
0.002
Experiment FEM_vevp
0.000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (min)
and ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
94
0.008
0.006
Axial Strain .
3 =400.00 kPa
0.004
B B
1- 3 =150.00 kPa
B B B B
0.002 Experiment FEM_vevp
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)
and ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 250kPa )
Fig.6.10 to Fig.6.12 shows the predictions by the DSC-creep vevp overlay model
for 3 = 400kPa . The prediction results by the model are very close to the experimental
values.
The plot for ( 1 3 ) = 0.2 p kPa (Fig.6.10) compares results quite well with the
experimental results. The values of strain predicted by the model are little high up to
4000 min. The model predicts the results quite well later. The strain rate shows similar
trend for all time interval.
The plot for ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa (Fig.6.11) and ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa (Fig.6.12)
compares good with the experimental results. Very less or no error is observed at any
time. The strain rate also shows good correlation with the experimental values.
95
The results in the plots Fig.6.4 to Fig.6.11 compares well with the experimental
results for 3 = 100kPa, 200kPa and 400kPa. The comparison of the results proves that
DSC- vevp Overlay model closely describes the behavior of subglacial till.
The DSC-vevp model is then used to study the unloading process for all the three
cases i.e., 3 = 100kPa, 200kPa and 400kPa. The results from the unloading curves are as
shown in the Fig.6.12 to Fig.6.23. The plot from the unloading curves were used to
calculate the viscoelastic (ve) and viscoplastic (vp) part for all cases as shown in the
Table 6.2 to Table 6.4
0.008
0.006
Axial Strain .
0.004 3 =100.00 kPa

B B
1- 3= 42.00 kPa
B B B B
0.002
0.000
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Time (min)
Figure 6.12-Stress-strain results for constant 3 = 100kPa and

( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa ( p = 106kPa ) from FE-vevp Overlay model
96
0.01
0.008
Axial Strain .
0.006
3 =100.00 kPa
B B
1- 3 = 63.60 kPa
0.004
B B B B
0.002
0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000
Time (min)
Figure 6.13-Stress-strain results for constant 3 = 100kPa and

( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa ( p = 106kPa ) from FE- vevp Overlay model
Table 6.1- Values of e , vp and ve for 3 = 100kPa .
( 1 3 )kPa i (t = 6500 min ) e ( CTC) vp ve

0.4 p = 42.4 0.00782 0.00125 0.0061 0.00041
0.6 p = 63.6 0.00933 0.0018 0.007 0.00055
The results shows increase in the value of viscoplastic ( vp ) and viscoelastic
strain ( ve ) with increase in deviatoric stress ( 1 3 )kPa for 3 = 100kPa as shown in
the Table.6.1. The value of ve is less as compared to vp for same vale of ( 1 3 )kPa .
97
0.0028
0.0024
.
0.0020
0.0016
Axial Strain
0.0012
3 =200.00 kPa
B B
0.0008 1- 3 = 34.85 kPa

B B B B
0.0004
0.0000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Time (min)
Figure 6.14 -Stress-strain results for constant 3 = 200kPa and
0.015
0.012
.
Axial Strain
0.009
0.006 3 =200.00 kPa

B B
1- 3 = 70.72 kPa
B B B B
0.003
0.000
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
Time (min)
Figure 6.15 -Stress-strain results for constant 3 = 200kPa and
98
0.032
0.028
0.024
.
0.02
Axial Strain
0.016
3 =200.00 kPa
0.012
B B
1- 3 =104.58 kPa
B B B B
0.008
0.004
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)
FIGURE-6.16 Stress-strain results for constant 3 = 200kPa and
0.080
.
0.060
Axial Strain
0.040
3 =200.00 kPa
B B
1- 3 =139.40 kPa
B B B B
0.020
0.000
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (min)
FIGURE- 6.17 Stress-strain results for constant 3 = 200kPa and
( 1 3 ) = 0.8 p kPa ( p = 185kPa ) from FE-vevp Overlay model
99
Table 6.2-Values of e , vp and ve for 3 = 200kPa .
( 1 3 )kPa i e (CTC) vp ve
0.2 p = 37 0.002609 (t = 18300 min) 0.00084 0.00175 9.0E-06
0.4 p = 74 0.0145 (t = 8335 min) 0.00168 0.011 0.00182
0.6 p = 111 0.02958 (t = 3335 min) 0.00252 0.02 0.00706
0.8 p = 148 0.0765 (t = 3335 min) 0.00336 0.06 0.0134
0.08 Total strain
Elastic strain
0.06
Viscoplastic
Strain
0.04 strain
Viscoelastic
0.02 strain
0
0 50 100 150 200
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
Fig.6.18- Plot of ( 1 3 )kPa vs. Strain for 3 = 200kPa .
The results (Fig.6.18) shows increase in the value of Viscoelastic strain ( ve ) and
Viscoplastic strain ( vp ) with increase in deviatoric stress ( 1 3 )kPa for 3 = 200kPa
as shown in the Table.6.2. Also, the value of ve is less as compared to vp for a given
value of deviatoric stress ( 1 3 )kPa . The plot (Fig.6.18) shows high rate of increasing
in the value of vp and very less rate of increase in ve . Thus, it can be concluded that
100
viscoelastic strain in very less significant for higher values of deviatoric stress
for 3 = 200kPa .
0.0025
.
0.002
0.0015
Axial Strain
0.001 3 =400.00 kPa

B B
1- 3 =50.00 kPa
B B B B
0.0005
0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Time (min)
0.008
0.006
Axial Strain .
0.004
3 =400.00 kPa
0.002
B B
1 =500.00 kPa
B B
0.000
0 3000 6000 9000 12000
Time (min)
101
0.008
.
0.006
Axial Strain
0.004
3 =400.00 kPa
B B
1- 3=150.00 kPa
B B B B
0.002
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (min)
FIGURE 6.21- Stress-strain results for constant 3 = 400kPa and
Total strain Elastic strain

Viscoplastic strain Viscoelastic strain
0.0084
0.0063
Strain
0.0042
0.0021
0
0 50 100 150 200
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)
Fig 6.22- Plot of ( 1 3 )kPa vs. Strain for 3 = 400kPa .

102
Table 6.3- Values of e , vp and ve for 3 = 400kPa .
( 1 3 )kPa i e (CTC) vp ve
0.2 p = 50 0.00243 (t = 6335 min) 0.000625 0.0018 5.0E-06
0.4 p = 100 0.00701 (t = 7500 min) 0.00125 0.0049 0.00086
0.6 p = 150 0.00754 (t = 5000 min) 0.00187 0.0051 0.00057
The results (Fig.6.22) shows increase in the value of Viscoelastic strain ( vp ) and
Viscoplastic strain ( ve ) with increase in deviatoric stress ( 1 3 )kPa for 3 = 400kPa
as shown in the Table.6.3. The plot (Fig.6.22) shows high rate of increasing in the
viscoplastic strain and almost no increase in the values of viscoelastic strain . Thus, it can
be concluded that viscoelastic strain in very less significant for higher values of
deviatoric stress for 3 = 400kPa .
Total strain Elastic strian

0.016
0.012
Strain
0.008
0.004
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Sigma 3 (kPa)
Fig- 6.23 Plot of 3kPa vs. Strain for ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa
103
Fig.6.23 shows the plot of 3kPa vs. ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa for different 3kPa .
The curve shows high values of viscoplastic strain as compared to viscoelastic strain for
given values of 3kPa . The Viscoplastic strain contributes more towards total strain than
viscoelastic strain. The value of viscoplastic and viscoelastic strain shows similar trend.
Fig.6.24 shows the quadratic trendline plot for the values of viscoelastic and
viscoplastic strain. The maximum value of ve is 0.00145 for 3 250kPa . Similarly, the
maximum value of vp is 0.0098 for 3 166.67 kPa .

Poly. (Viscoplastic strain) Poly. (Viscoelastic strain)
0.016
2
y = -3E-07x + 0.0001x - 0.0041
0.012
Strain
0.008
2
y = -6E-08x + 3E-05x - 0.0023
0.004
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Sigma 3 (kPa)
Fig-6.24 Trend line plot of 3kPa vs. Strain for ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa
104
Total Strain Elastic strain

Viscoplastic stain Viscoelatic strain
0.03
0.025
0.02
Strain
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Sigma 3 (kPa)
Fig.6.25- Plot of 3kPa vs. Strain for ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa
Viscoplastic stain Viscoelatic strain

Poly. (Viscoplastic stain) Poly. (Viscoelatic strain
0.025 2
y = -7E-07x + 0.0003x - 0.0196
0.02
0.015
Strain
2
y = -3E-07x + 0.0002x - 0.0125
0.01
0.005
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Sigma 3 (kPa)
Fig.6.26- Trend line plot of 3kPa vs. Strain for ( 1 3 ) = 0.4 p kPa
105
Fig.6.25 shows the plot of 3kPa vs. ( 1 3 ) = 0.6 p kPa for different 3kPa .
The curve shows very high values of viscoplastic strain as compared to viscoelastic strain
for given values of 3kPa . The viscoplastic strain contributes more towards total strain
than viscoelastic strain. There is not significant change in the value of viscoelastic strain
as compared to viscoplastic strain.
Fig.6.26 shows the quadratic trendline plot for the values of viscoelastic and
viscoplastic strain. The maximum value of ve is 0.0125 for 3 333.33kPa . Similarly,
the maximum value of vp is 0.021 for 3 214.28kPa .

106
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A constitutive model based on Multicomponent DSC (MDSC) to predict the creep
behavior of subglacial till has been used (Desai, 2001). The model takes into account the
factor such as induced non-associative ness, anisotropy, softening due to creep loading,
inelastic response during loading for large time interval. The model also takes into
account the elastic (e ) , viscoelastic (ve ) , viscoplastic (vp ) and inviscid plasticity during
the creep loading.
The model considers that the actual response can be related to two reference states
called the intact state and the fully disturbed state through a disturbance function D. The
intact state is modeled by the hierarchical associative plasticity model hardening
isotropically, 0 and the fully disturbed state is modelled by the critical state.
The inelastic loading is modeled by using the interpolation functions
which are made function of the disturbance. The disturbance increases during loading and
increases with time.
Laboratory creep experiments were done on simple triaxial creep device. The
experiments were performed in drained conditions on Tiskilwa subglacial till.
Verification of the model is done with respect to the laboratory creep results and
shows that the model can predict well, the drained creep behavior of subglacial till. The
predictions of drained creep tests shows that reasonably good predictions of these tests
can be obtained by using the parameters found only from undrained CTC test and drained
creep tests.
107
1.1 New Contribution
Significant new contributions are achieved in this research. They are
1. A constitutive model based on Disturbed State Concept (DSC) is applied to
predict the drained creep behavior of normally consolidated fully saturated
subglacial till
2. The creep parameters in the MDSC model have been evaluated from the creep
tests conducted by using the triaxial creep device.
3. The model with the average parameters is used to predict the test data from which
the parameters were determined and independent tests not used to find the
parameter.
108
REFERENCES
1. Alley, R.B., Blankenship, D.D., Bentley, C.R., and Rooney, S.T., Deformation
of till beneath ice stream B, West Antarctica, Nature, Vol. 322, 1986, pp 57-59.
2. Alley, R.B., Blankenship, D.D., Rooney, S.T., and Bentley, C.R., Till Beneath
Ice Stream B4- A Coupled Ice-till Flow Model, Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 92, 1987b, pp 8931-8940.
3. Annual Report National Science Foundation-Sponsored Research Project EAR-
0229513, Collaborative Research: Testing and Constitutive Modeling of Fine-
Grained Glacial Tills Deposited by the Laurentide Ice Sheet, 2004- 2005.
4. Blake, E.W., The Deformation Bed beneath a Surge- Type Glacier:
Measurement of Mechanical and Electrical Properties. PhD thesis, Univ. of
British Columbia, Vancouver, 1992.
5. Blankenship, D.D., Benteley C.R., Rooney S.T. and Alley R.B. Till beneath Ice
Stream B: 1. Properties Derived from Seismic Travel Times. J.Geophy. Res.,92,
1987, pp 8903-8911.
6. Boulton G.S. and Dent D.L.,The nature and rates of post- depositional changes
in recently deposited till from south-east Iceland. Geogr. Ann., 56-A, 1974, pp
121-134.
7. Boulton G.S., Dent D.L. and Morris E.M. Subglacial Shearing and Crushing,
and the Role of Water Pressure in Tills from South- East Iceland. Geogr. Ann.,
56A, 1974, pp 135- 145.

109
8. Boulton, G.S. and Hindmarsh R.C.A., Sediment deformation beneath glaciers:
rheology and geological consequences. Jou. Geophy. Res., 92, 1987, pp-9059-
9082.
9. Boulton, G.S. and Jones A.S.,Stability of Temperate Ice caps and Ice sheets
Resting on Beds of Deformable Sediment, Jou. Glaciol., 24, 1979, pp 29- 42.
10. Clarke, G.K.C., Sub-glacial Till: A Physical Framework for its Properties and
Processes. Jou. Geophy. Res., 92, 1987(b), 9023- 9036.
11. Clarke, G.K.C., Collins S.G. and Thompson D.E., Flow, Thermal Structure, and
Subglacial Conditions of the Surge-type Glacier, Can. J. Earth Sci., 21, 1984, pp
232- 240.
12. Desai C.S., Mechanics of Material and Interface- The Disturbed State Concept,
CRC Press, USA, 2001.
13. Desai C.S., User Manual- DSC-SST2D, Computer code for Static, Dynamic,
Creep and Thermal Analysis: Solid, Structure, and Soil- Structure Problems,
Part- 1, 2 and 3, Version 2, Tucson, Arizona, USA, 1999.
14. Desai C.S., and Zhang. D., Viscoplastic Model for Geological Materials and
Generalized Flow Rule, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. in Geomech., Vol.11, 1987
pp 603- 620.
15. Engelhardt, H.F., Harrison W.D., and Kamb B., Basal Sliding and Conditions at
the Glacier Bed as Revealed by Bore-hole Photography, Jou. Glaciol., 20, 1978
pp 469- 508.
16. Fischer, U.H. and G.K.C. Clarke, Ploughing of Subglacial Sediment. J.Glaciol,
40, 1994.
110
17. Humphrey, N., Kamb, B., Fahnestock, M., and Engelhardt, H., Characteristics of
the bed of the lower Columbia Glacier, Alaska: Journal of Geophysical Research,
v. 98, 1993, pp 837-846.
18. Johnson, A.M.,Physical Processes in Geology, Freeman, Cooper, and Co., San
Fransico, Calif., 1970.
19. Kamb, B.Rheological Non-linearity and Flow Instability in the Deforming Bed
Mechanism of Ice Stream Motion. Jou. Geophys. Res., 96, pp 16585- 16595,
1991.
20. Lama R.D. and Vutukuri V.S.,Handbook on Mechanical Properties of Rocks,
Vol-3, Trans Tech Pub., 1978.
21. Lingle, C.S., and Brown, T.J.,A Subglacial Aquifer Bed Model and Water
Pressure Dependent Basal Sliding relationship for a West Antarctic Ice- stream,
in van der Veen, C.J., and Oerlemans, J., eds., Dynamics of the West Antarctic
Ice Sheet: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1987, pp. 249-285.
22. MacAyeal, D.R.,Large- scale Ice Flow over Viscous Basal Sediment: Theory
and application to Ice Stream B Antartica Jou. geophys. Res., 94, 1989, pp
4071- 4087.
23. MacClintock, P and Dreimanis A.,Reorientation of Till Fabric by Overriding
Glacier in the St. Lawrence Valley. Am. J. Sci., 262, 1964, pp 133-142.
24. Mathews, W.H.,Surface profile of the Laurentide Ice Sheet in its Marginal
Areas. J. Glaciol., 13, 1974, pp 37-43.
25. Patersons, W.S.B., The Physics of Glaciers, 3rd ed., Pergamon Press, New York,
P P
1994
111
26. Perzyna. P., Fundamental Problems in Viscoplasticity, Adv. in Appl. Mech., 9,
1966, pp 243- 277.
27. Roy, M., 1998, Pleistocene stratigraphy of the Lower Nelson River Area:
Implications for the evolution of the Hudson Bay Lowland of Manitoba, Canada.
Unpublished MS Thesis, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
28. Samtani, N.C. and Desai C.S., Constitutive Modelling and Finite Element
Analysis of Slowly moving landslide using Hierarchical Viscoplastic Material
Model. Report to NSF, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The Univ. of Arizona,
Tucson, USA, 1991.
29. Sane S., Constitutive Modelling and Finite Element Analysis of Glacial Till.
PhD thesis, Tucson, USA., 2005.(under preparation)
30. Turcotte, D.L., and Schubert G., Geodynamics, John Wiley, New York, 1982.
31. Weast, R.C. (Ed.),Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 54th ed., CRC Press,
P P
Cleveland, Ohio, 1973.

MS Thesis Pandey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MS Thesis Pandey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISTURBED STATE MODELLING FOR CREEP

RESPONSE OF SUBGLACIAL TILL

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

Uncle Sushil K. Puri

May God bless their Soul..

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor C.S.Desai for providing

The love, patience, encouragement, guidance and moral support given to me by

I am grateful to my friends and roommates Dhananjay, Rajarashi, Vineet,

T.N.Singh, Associate Professor, IIT-Bombay for his encouragement and support.

DEFORMATION OF GLACIAL TILL ........................................................................... 11

RHEOLOGICAL MATERIAL MODELS ................................................................... 25

THE DISTURBED STATE CONCEPT ........................................................................... 31

LABORATORY CREEP EXPERIMENTS, PARAMETER DETERMINATION AND

BACK PREDICTION ....................................................................................................... 37

COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DSC AND FINITE ELEMENT

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 106

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 108

a Newtonian viscous material or a perfectly plastic material. The simplified assumption

there is a need for constitutive modeling based on fundamental considerations. Such a

behavior and triaxial creep device for creep behavior.

parameters is implemented in a non-linear static finite element program (DSC-SST2D). It

is used to solve the elastoviscoplastic (evp) and viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp) behavior

for the subglacial till.

understanding of subglacial processes.

Improving our understanding of subglacial processes is important, because they

material deformation and stress are proportional whereas in a Newtonian viscous

material, the rate of deformation is proportional to the stress. In a perfectly plastic

yield stress is reached, after which rapid deformation begins.

1.1 Necessity of Present Research

using appropriate testing.

1.2 Objective and Scope of Research

The scope of the research is as follows.

1. Conduct appropriate laboratory creep experiments on the subglacial till;

2. Determination of creep parameters;

results with laboratory observations;

independent tests; and

6. Further prediction of creep results for unloading and interpretation of results.

1.3 Organization of Text

and the existing flow relation for till is presented in Chapter 2

In Chapter 3, the review of various rheological models is described in brief.

viscoelastic (ve) model, Perzynas elastoviscoplastic model (evp) and

dimensional procedure and compares them with the laboratory observations.

Chapter 6 briefly describes the implementation of DSC to finite element

DEFORMATION OF GLACIAL TILL

1964) but they have, until recently, ignored this fact.

frictional surface i.e., in the direction of ice movement.

behavior of some surging glaciers (Clarke and others, 1984).

1.2 Properties of Till

The term till, as used by glaciologist, refers to deformable subglacial sediments

irrespective of whether they are originally deposited by a glacier or by water. To a

is an essential component of a deformable till.

saturated till that is deforming subglacially.

Steady state flow of a fluid through a porous medium is assumed to be governed

layer lying on an impermeable surface of slope , the flux q in m / s is given by

Here, is the density of the fluid, is viscosity Pa s , g the acceleration due to

(consolidation). Because the amount of compression depends on the hydrostatic

permeability depends on these quantities as well. Measured values of k for deformable

tills are in the range 2 10 13 to 4 10 15 m 2 .

= 1.787 103 Pa s and = 5.5 10 6 k .

to the diffusion equation. The equation for one dimension is given by

viscosity and compressibility of water. Values of D are in the range

4 10 4 to 6 10 7 m 2 / s (Boulton and Dent, 1974).

The Yield stress may be obtained from Mohr- Coulomb criterion as

angle of the material respectively.