Introduction
In a recent paper, Reference NyeNye (1965) has extended the existing theory of a valley glacier to take into account drag by the sides of the valley. He analysed the steady rectilinear flow of ice down a channel with uniform cross-section and uniform slope, and in his theoretical model assumed a power-law stress–strain-rate relation for steady creep consistent with Reference GlenGlen’s (1955) experiments. The glacier was assumed not to slip over its bed, but Nye pointed out that this effect could be included in the theory when more was known about it, and that several of his results appear to hold independently of whether or not slip occurs. Analytical solutions exist only for four special channel cross-sections (channels infinitely wide with uniform depth, semi-circular, infinitely deep with uniform width, and slightly elliptical), although through a careful use of symmetry and dimensional arguments some useful results on flow in elliptical channels can be found.
Further progress requires numerical solution of the governing differential equations, using a digital computer, and in this way Nye found stress and velocity distributions for a number of distinct symmetrical channel shapes (rectangular, parabolic and semi-elliptical) of different proportions. Although this method gives very complete information, its use requires considerable programming effort and a large amount of computer time.
In the present paper we apply to glacier-flow problems a theorem due to Reference MartinMartin (1966) for obtaining upper bounds on displacement rates in steady creep, and a development of Martin’s approach to find lower bounds (Reference PalmerPalmer, in press). Through this method one can find close upper and lower bounds on the mean velocity over the cross-section of the glacier, on the mean velocity on the surface and on certain other velocities. It can be applied to glaciers of arbitrary cross-section, not necessarily symmetrical, and to any power-law stress–strain-rate relation, whether the exponent is integral or non-integral. Close bounds can be found rapidly by comparatively simple hand calculations, or computed still more quickly using standard programmes. In no way, of course, can this method replace exact numerical solutions; it tells us nothing of the stress or of the fine details of the velocity distribution, and it gives only bounds on mean velocities, although these bounds are frequently close enough for most purposes. It is suggested here, however, that close bounds on mean velocities will yield useful information about real glaciers and that, because it makes trial solutions for different assumed flow laws much less laborious, this method may be helpful in linking field observations with the results of laboratory tests.
Notation: General Theorems
In order that the bound theorems can be stated concisely, Cartesian tensor notation will be used in the description of velocities, stresses and strain-rates. The position of a point is defined by its Cartesian coordinates x 1, x 2, x 3 and the velocity by its components u i (i = 1,2,3) in the 1, 2 and 3 directions. The strain-rate
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/22568/22568fe12c1e9d70b474840d2dc0fa86ab8fcaa9" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b17fe/b17fefa5d8a5cdfcf6aa01aa710e85f93d544e19" alt=""
Stress is described by σ ij (i, j = 1,2,3), so that σ 11 is the component of stress acting in the 1 direction on a plane normal to the 1 axis, σ 12 the component of stress acting in the 2 direction on a plane normal to the 1 axis, and so on. Body forces, referred to unit volume, are denoted F i ; surface tractions, referred to unit area, are denoted T i . The repeated subscript summation convention (Reference PragerPrager, 1961) is used frequently, so that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c777c/c777c71a3e32f6d97550c1a559660c853ec8f9d1" alt=""
Reference MartinMartin (1964, Reference Martin1966) considered steady creep in materials whose stress–strain-rate law has the form
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0cffb/0cffb79b8c5b2e2f89e59a02d786997b85477317" alt=""
where
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bab15/bab157fcada22c8403caa9964a9d0c64b7239827" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e5e68/e5e6810718e0a326c7509550790ade3fb07d4c74" alt=""
where
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e10c/9e10c61098e57cd28abca73648890642e67b46c2" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a32bb/a32bbed0d76c5ebdcfadbcc19d2ec60df924891b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a327/9a3278426695144aa64c3f6392a9ae219c7eec7b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e68aa/e68aacea8ab513aafaf6d69167acc4d3a5c09725" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e1fa3/e1fa3b11b6eb3c530e28176019381ae024cb3aff" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/47225/47225ddffc31f3dacc412e1fc37bd2ce6678992e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ecd47/ecd4754707578cf9ec5cc0b5cf03b5ee3a3695e3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/17fbf/17fbfb39b28f886ef401ee185b2530b94295dc25" alt=""
for any
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/324de/324dee5b5b9c6bd207d54717cd86120865255506" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f438c/f438c72e6b343c2495bfe2bd74e4640dd38adade" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c2abd/c2abdef4feafbc639d9059887d5fad86d6e20631" alt=""
Since the solution velocities and strain-rates certainly satisfy the conditions imposed on
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4ced6/4ced6c37a815db8e56c90bf908337d67d7f73c76" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e81e3/e81e31cc6ecf05e2b2583f69a0ec533b89eb4182" alt=""
throughout (4). Applying (5) to the solution velocity and stress fields, substituting into (4) and re-arranging (Reference MartinMartin, 1966)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a8fd/9a8fd29463d117bb37e57d8a1f78b2873ff07a61" alt=""
This inequality gives upper bounds on velocities. If instead we idengify
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/988aa/988aa27eb5e77ec5bd2a5088d58d324d93841551" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a17d/2a17dbde04603124bfea2e3086e511ccdc4651ea" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98093/9809394f1eec10db6319149db7e3645c11e19bdf" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/26f4b/26f4b4472b74154650af7ccea3b8124ede2ca766" alt=""
then we can again apply (5) to the solution velocity and stress fields, substitute in (4) and re-arrange, to arrive at
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ce9b0/ce9b0b2cbcb2f09095f30bb572397e1858266202" alt=""
In the glacier-flow problem about to be considered
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a8d3d/a8d3d12336162d2b5fbcd13b76b3704587870678" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a071/2a07150b51e800390fa8e0e84bc229d6cfed8860" alt=""
Theoretical Model
Ice flows steadily under gravity down a straight uniform channel of uniform slope α. Position is defined by coordinate axes aligned in the manner illustrated in Figure 1; the 1-axis is directed along the channel, at an angle α to the horizontal. If the channel is symmetrical the x 1 and x 2 axes lie in the plane of symmetry; otherwise their position is chosen arbitrarily. The plane x 2 = 0 coincides with the upper surface of the ice.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57be1/57be13df24f9b94c035eaabe25ea52e34907b364" alt=""
Fig. 1.
Stated in terms of a simple shear deformation in which each material point has a velocity only in the 1-direction, Glen’s stress–strain-rate relation takes the form
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9f8a0/9f8a0237830bb48e668c8794b4950390a3cb3dbf" alt=""
where C and n are constants and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4428f/4428f35f0ab7c51c0c3cbc0b794cf6c909f55e98" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18ffd/18ffd28e316a5b5244bbfd5e3e987c6b4cfa6b51" alt=""
where S ij is the deviatoric stress tensor
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a484/2a48484d71aba52274183552c7688ae732d4ded4" alt=""
Upper Bounds
The upper and lower bound inequalities are now applied in turn to a section of the glacier cut between two planes unit distance apart and parallel to the x 2, x 3 plane (Fig. 1). This section is bounded by the following surfaces: the up-stream cross-section of the glacier (denoted A 1), the down-stream cross-section (denoted A 2), the part of the glacier surface lying between the two sectioning planes (denoted A 3), and the corresponding part of the glacier bed (denoted A 4). The ice is acted on by a gravity force ρ g on unit volume, where ρ is the density and g the acceleration due to gravity; resolving this in the coordinate directions, the body-force components F i are
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7b804/7b804c4f9bf014d9b81b175f2b4a708fa7846328" alt=""
If a stress field satisfies equilibrium, at each point
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cd664/cd66465882400689c00b101c21d5f75b6298d31c" alt=""
Since the upper surface of the glacier is free,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d2b7e/d2b7e77add2e5f50d040a40a3cef37b4e15750b2" alt=""
From the assumed condition that there is no slip between the glacier and its bed
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6b23e/6b23e4b40c01a4f6e6c62a32031f4fb9f6d34e71" alt=""
Since each section of the glacier is identical, in the sense that the flow is uniform along its length, the surface traction at a point on the up-stream face A 1 is equal and opposite to that at the corresponding point on the down-stream face A 2, and the velocities at the two points are identical. It follows that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0c88/d0c887d26fa9bf4c16f81292154a55343ed74974" alt=""
In order to use the inequalities, we have to choose the stress field
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d2be8/d2be8fdbdf742920ad9e246b7443df67770e1964" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cd616/cd61641eab500188b94f3b5e747003a3f96f9c0a" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6a324/6a324e84e09e792c098a46a03fa0934b51abb1bd" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dd85e/dd85e2510145672e7558892a98d91d11bccdb2bf" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8dfbd/8dfbd195950ff54dd23fd49198bc36ab4ff016ef" alt=""
and take account of the boundary conditions expressed in (14), (15) and (16), it follows from (7) that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7c110/7c110501800c300c0c921fa8db5d594090bee6fd" alt=""
But since the section we are considering has unit length in the flow direction
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e76bb/e76bb58549781bbccb70550e12d437878035b641" alt=""
where A * is the cross-sectional area of the glacier and ū is the mean velocity over the crosssection.Footnote † Thus
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/88519/88519f8ad19e4fbe965b1a7089e4136edd880f45" alt=""
If we let
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ec240/ec24030f4ed42733098ac78c3eb31165dc52d213" alt=""
where β is a constant still to be found, the equilibrium and boundary conditions on
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/35187/351872bdcc6f29d7d198111330074b9467ace943" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aa6cc/aa6cca0ed6ed46353051a1d898f853367508096d" alt=""
Then, from inequality (20),
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ffd66/ffd668f3ffe0563bc22363afa704433e1f289cc6" alt=""
an upper bound on the mean velocity in a channel of arbitrary cross-section. In order to compare it with Nye’s exact numerical solution, we apply it to a symmetrical parabolic channel of depth a and half-width W a, and let n=3 Evaluating the integral,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1f931/1f931eab4e5937cef34e4c53bfcb1125d79d40ca" alt=""
If β = 1, we have an upper bound
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/db8d4/db8d4de59e5760b7d09203ab9688573fca0bba0d" alt=""
identical to the solution for an infinitely wide parabolic channel (Reference NyeNye, 1965). If β = 0,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7821/d7821af7d5eeba0c87060b07ea321464048535c1" alt=""
which approaches the exact solution as W→0. Although any value of β gives an upper bound on ū, one naturally seeks to minimize this bound through an appropriate choice of β; this is found by differentiating (24) with respect to β, setting the derivative zero, and for each W of interest solving the resulting cubic equation in. β/(1−β). In Table I and Figure 2 the bounds found by this procedure are compared with values from the numerical solutions.
Table I. Bounds on Dimensionless Mean Velocity
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c6a1/2c6a164c89fafc789cff9132c3869e48461a78ad" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d3002/d3002c7809816951a604ea7176faa4d564278537" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/79f40/79f40910e27fe63fca615fb17eafb243e6428022" alt=""
Fig. 2. Upper and lower bounds on ū , the mean velocity, as functions of W, the ratio of half-width to depth, for parabolic channels
Although more complex stress fields than (21) can be applied in a search for even closer bounds, further improvement is only gained after much more extensive calculation, which is hardly repaying. It is interesting that such good bounds are given by this simple stress field, in which the shear stress on the surface increases steadily towards the edge. The exact solution of the problem shows that the actual stress distribution is quite different, and that the shear stress at the surface reaches a maximum at about 0.6 W a from the centre line and thereafter decreases.
In order to find an upper bound on the mean velocity on the upper surface of the glacier, a different choice of
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ed736/ed736aeaf5127b50b7766ce227c1813f31ae893f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8d41f/8d41fbafc2b4c01154d35fd8fbe59b9c1d4b68b5" alt=""
where γ and ψ are positive constants still to be determined, then, if we take account of (14), (15) and (16), inequality (7) reduces to
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c197b/c197b160cf8962978b5d157d8d1cbef0cd297ea1" alt=""
Here u s is the mean velocity on the surface, a is the depth of the channel on the centre line (or at some arbitrarily chosen point) and W the half-width/depth ratio. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/19b6d/19b6d423106e6e420b2e0026cac63b1ab39a49f2" alt=""
A simple
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2f921/2f921b03eade6076b04a3caf8f130132b5c3b419" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2e06/e2e06b41ea0b73acfe4f783567ad4dac8bef9e04" alt=""
This stress distribution again corresponds to a simple shear deformation; the strain-rates are given by (10). Applying this to the parabolic cross-section described earlier, and again letting n = 3,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/212fa/212fa4c75fecc7e3e211acda3e6edda8affaa3d0" alt=""
This bound can now be optimized for each W by an appropriate choice of γ and ψ; the smallest upper bound can be found either analytically or by one of the standard methods for optimum search (Reference WildeWilde, 1964). A close bound can be located quite rapidly, since near to the optimum the expression (31) alters only slowly with changes in γ and ψ A comparison between upper bounds on u S and the exact solution is given in Table II and Figure 3.
Table II. Upper Bound on Dimensionless Surface Velocity us /a 4 C(ρ g sin α)3 for Parabolic Channels (n = 3) with Different Values of W
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/21c59/21c59f947814d988e5bc80efb18db8ec9663382b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0d71c/0d71c47ddd355ea53e6d3f84519748a17554e126" alt=""
Fig. 3. An upper bound on us, the mean velocity on the surface, as a function of W, the ratio of half-width to depth, for parabolic channels
This technique can also be used to find a direct bound on
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b0cad/b0cad0077aab48ad1fe56422ce9af5fa0c925974" alt=""
Lower Bounds
A lower bound on the mean velocity ū can be derived from inequality (9). If the velocity field
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/62d2a/62d2aaca8cb2363fdc311514ee31a1b7247ce170" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e8200/e8200ee55d2fe88f8423748efd114155d84ae578" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5a038/5a038829963a757ccd7223ed53d463b575cf38f4" alt=""
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18dab/18dab1f095ee2f2232adecbb21603b7c3d4b7d5e" alt=""
Inequality (9) then gives
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/88ae7/88ae7ea74debc888c75053bfbdf4c842d72d8e0d" alt=""
Any velocity field which satisfies (34) then gives a lower bound on ū; the strain-rate
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4865e/4865efe4eea1fb49f708828900e16cf7797a59e0" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/db2c7/db2c71398c2dfaa77f5e569f6c21040184d7ea26" alt=""
We again apply this method to find a lower bound on ū in a parabolic channel when n = 3. If the half-width/depth ratio were large, the surface velocity at a point where the depth is H would be the same as that in an infinitely wide channel of uniform depth H, and since n = 3 this velocity is proportional to H 4. The boundary of the channel is the parabola
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/52719/5271996b2a22e6cdc8b52e0f1b690c53708bb1bf" alt=""
If the velocity on the centre line at the surface is λ and a velocity distribution identical to that in a very wide channel is chosen for
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09a6c/09a6c957e7a64a7e00491e9638351a0947ed1ff7" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c327/4c3276764d96e9ad53c1f09d7728b86a76758b01" alt=""
then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aa90c/aa90c666efc49e73128c438035b4783ce8acd982" alt=""
and from (35)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/61171/61171f157278f09fb6896ca1b98a319f0a2ac221" alt=""
where
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/56c71/56c71553a2bd43e130cb46233ffcb848cb0d298f" alt=""
Minimizing the right-hand side of (40) with respect to λ, and simplifying
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba318/ba318b39982d3ddefb4491a03ad881f793aa649b" alt=""
If W→∞, I(W)→256/3465 and we have the exact solution, identical with the lower bound. Numerical integration of I(W) for finite W gives a lower bound on ū. This is compared with Nye’s exact numerical solution and with the upper bound in Table 1 and Figure 2.
The lower bound on ū represented by the right-hand side of inequality (40) is rather ill-conditioned, in the sense that it is a small difference between large quantities. As one might expect from this, these lower bounds are more sensitive to the choice of the velocity field
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/01599/0159961549ff91e3b0c56104131263756f3e877a" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1567b/1567b7480d0e25b38f2dafd92ef707996d3a0216" alt=""
Inequality (9) cannot be used directly to locate a lower bound on the mean surface velocity u s , since it is not possible to choose
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b6f81/b6f813d941fa300e97f61c88240791306df1de17" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/96380/96380e6368e0fc0c53aae8166b3eb51b7c8e1d8a" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/410cf/410cf4cf7719b307e814ac15b7dc8e6dace49bd8" alt=""
Application to Real Glaciers
The technique for finding velocity bounds described in this paper can be applied to actual glaciers whose cross-sections have been determined by sounding. Finding upper bounds requires statically admissible stress fields which satisfy a boundary condition on the upper surface of the ice, whereas to find lower bounds one needs a kinematically admissible velocity field which satisfies the “no slip” boundary condition on the lower surface. Since the upper surface—or a reasonable idealization of it—will generally be the geometrically simpler, it will probably be easier to find upper bounds. If, for example, the upper surface is level in the cross-stream direction, the stress field (21) is suitable. When the section is asymmetric, a coordinate origin can be chosen arbitrarily. If the stress–strain-rate exponent n is 3, a determination of a lower bound on ū then requires only the integration of
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/702e0/702e02e3cf47c019b227baeccc1b81e64e4d2671" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a5f98/a5f9836242e6878e0299c2cf695ae230da9875d6" alt=""