Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193 – 211

www.elsevier.com/locate/coldregions

A macroscale model for low density snow subjected to

rapid loading
Robert B. Haehnel*, Sally A. Shoop
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Development Laboratory (ERDC-CRREL),
Hanover, NH, 03755, Germany
Received 3 September 2003; accepted 4 August 2004

Abstract

A Capped Drucker–Prager (CDP) model was used to simulate the deformation-load response of a low density (150–250 kg/
m3) snow being loaded at high strain rates (i.e., strain rates associated with vehicle passage) in the temperature range of
1 to

10 8C. The range in the appropriate model parameters was determined from experimental data. The model parameters were
refined by running finite-element models of a radially confined uniaxial compression test and a plate sinkage test and comparing
these results with laboratory and field experiments of the same. This effort resulted in the development of two sets of model
parameters for low density snow, one set that is applicable for weak or bsoftQ snow and a second set that is representative of
stronger or bhardQ (aged or sintered) snow. Together, these models provide a prediction of the upper and lower bound of the
macroscale snow response in this density range. Furthermore, the modeled snow compaction density agrees well with measured
data. These models were used to simulate a tire rolling through new fallen snow and showed good agreement with the available
field data over the same depth and density range.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Snow; Low density; Finite element modeling (FEM); Capped Drucker–Prager; Plastic constitutive law; Snow mechanics

1. Introduction (3) Applying to military, such as the ability of snow

Understanding the mechanical properties of snow
subjected to rapid loading has application to many
areas of interest (Shapiro et al., 1997) including:
(1) Designing snow removal equipment.
(2) Predicting vehicle performance in snow.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Robert.B.Haehnel@erdc.usace.army.mil
(R.B. Haehnel).
0165-232X/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2004.08.001
to absorb projectile impacts and problems related
to snow-covered minefields.
Field evaluation of these technologies in snow can
be problematic owing to lack of reproducibility of
results in what is seemingly the bsameQ snow (e.g., the
same density and temperature). A typical example is
the difficulty of quantitatively evaluating the relative
performance of snow tires, even when each is tested
on the same track on the same day. It has long been
recognized that this is attributable to the variation in
194 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211
mechanical properties of the snow with the micro-
structure of the pack, which evolves in time because
of changes in air temperature, humidity, sintering of
the snow particles over time, the work done to the
snow (e.g., vehicle passage), etc.
Characterization of snow in general, and low
density snow in particular (100–250 kg/m3), is
problematic because of the range of falling snow
types and the rapid metamorphic changes that take
place in the snow once it is on the ground. Falling
snow can range from a feathery denderitic structure to
pellet-like sub-angular forms. The exact form of the
snow as it falls depends on the temperature, humidity,
and wind history that the flakes experience from the
time of their genesis until they reach the ground. Once
on the ground, the snow particles continue to
metamorphose due to ambient weather conditions
(e.g., wind, humidity, temperature, etc.). For example,
a snow cover that is initially dendritic in structure
(typically density of 100 kg/m3) subjected to wind
induced drifting is rapidly transformed to nearly
spherical particles that have a mean density of 300–
400 kg/m3. In the absence of wind this same fresh
snow cover can undergo temperature-driven meta-
morphism that causes sublimation of the small crystal
Fig. 1. Stress–strain curve for radially confined uniaxial compression tests of snow with a density range of 140–160 kg/m3 (data from Abele and
Gow, 1975).
structures and deposition of water vapor on larger
crystal structures (migration from a high surface area/
volume grain structure to a low surface area/volume
grain structure). Concurrently, pressure and temper-
ature gradients within the snow pack lead to sintering
of the snow. These mechanisms also lead to consol-
idation of the snow pack, yet can yield a profoundly
different structure and snow strength for the same
density.
For example, Fig. 1 shows the wide range in
response of snow that has a density of approximately
150 kg/m3 subjected to uniaxial compression. This
plot is for snow collected in its pristine condition from
the field and then compressed in a radially confined
uniaxial compression test (Abele and Gow, 1975).
This kind of scatter is typical for snow. The material
responds differently because of variations in sample
temperature, age of sample, snow microstructure, etc.,
not all of which are easily controlled or readily
measured in the field. Of particular interest is the
response of tests 1 and 2 in comparison to test 50 (Fig.
1). Tests 1 and 2 were done at a temperature of
7 8C,
while test 50 was conducted at
3 8C—yet tests 1 and
2 are the bsoftestQ samples in this density range, and
test 50 is among the bhardest.Q In this plot, it is clear
 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211
that the strength of the snow does not simply decrease
with temperature and illustrates that characterization
of snow requires far more information than simply
density or temperature; a knowledge of the snow’s
microstructure (the type of snow grains present and
the strength of the bond between these grains) and its
influence on the structural properties (compressive
strength, elastic modulus, etc.) of the snow pack is
required.
For example, Fukue (1979) showed that the age
of the snow can have a significant effect on its
strength. In unconfined uniaxial compression tests
using manufactured snow, Fukue showed that, for
samples allowed to sinter at constant density, the
strength of the snow increased 10-fold over the
course of 6 days. The influence of the snow’s
microstructure on its mechanical response is reported
by Armstrong (1980). His study of consolidation of
an alpine snow pack showed that a fine-grained,
sintered snow deformed at a rate 10 times greater
than an adjacent layer of depth hoar, though the
density of both layers were the same. Finally,
Voitkovsky et al. (1975) showed that the cohesion
strength of snow varies widely when plotted as a
function of density, yet the same cohesion data
plotted as a function of specific snow grain contact
surface (net area of inter-grain contacts per unit
volume) revealed a nearly linear relationship.
One way to side step the problem of poor
reproducibility of field results is to use virtual
prototyping techniques, in which the snow is repre-
sented using a computer model and the interaction of
the vehicle with the snow surface is simulated. This
provides a test bed using reproducible snow con-
ditions for a proscribed snow state. However, this
requires development of a material model for snow
that is representative of the snow response for an
appropriate set of conditions (e.g., snow density, age).
Such a model was produced for compacted high
density snow (400–500 kg/m3) by Meschke et al.
(1996). The model presented here is for low density,
undisturbed snow.
Terrain substrate subjected to wheel loads has
been represented using a wide variety of material
models, including elastic, non-linear elastic, viscoe-
lastic (Pi, 1988), and elastic–viscoplastic (Saliba,
1990). Recent studies concentrate on using either
Capped Drucker–Prager plasticity (Aubel, 1993,
195
1994; Fervers, 1994) or critical state models such
as the Bailey and Johnson (1989) soil compaction
model, implemented by Foster et al. (1995), or a new
critical state model (similar to Lade and Kim, 1995),
implemented by Liu and Wong (1996). Comparisons
between the Drucker–Prager and Cam-clay models
for tire–terrain interaction have been published by
Meschke et al. (1996) for snow and by Chi and
Tessier (1995) for soil. Although Cam-clay is perhaps
the most widely used soil model, both of the above
studies comment on convergence problems when
using Cam-Clay. The choice of material model is
based on balancing the type of behavior desired in
the model with the information available to determine
model parameters.
Meschke et al. (1996) and Miyori et al. (2002),
respectively, have produced material model parame-
ters for Cam-Clay and Mohr–Coulomb models of
packed snow (snow density of 400–500 kg/m3). In
this work we present a material model that is
representative of low density snow (approximately
150–250 kg/m3) subjected to short-term loading (i.e.,
creep response of the snow is not considered).
Recognizing that the strength of snow depends on
the snow microstructure, and not just density alone;
we have developed material models representative of
both weak and strong snow structures using a
modified Capped Drucker–Prager (CDP) model as
implemented in the ABAQUS (HKS, 1998) finite
element computer code. Though the microscale
processes (e.g., breaking of bonds, sliding of grains)
are not explicitly modeled, this model is suitable for
capturing the large-scale compressive and shear
behavior of natural, fresh snow (Shoop, 2001; Shoop
et al., 1999a,b, 2001). A description of the model,
model parameter determination, and validation of the
material models with laboratory and field data
follows.
2. General concepts for plasticity models
The purpose of a plasticity model is to describe the
permanent deformation of a plastic material and has
the following basic components (Wood, 1990):
(1) Elastic properties to define the recoverable
deformation.
196 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211

(2) A mathematical surface to define the yield
boundary between elastic behavior and plastic
material behavior.
(3) A plastic flow potential to mathematically define
the plastic deformation (also called a plastic flow
law).
(4) A hardening/softening rule defining the move-
ment (expansion or contraction) of the yield
surface during plastic deformation.
the features of a critical state model (i.e., regions of
constant volume shear deformation, and compactive–
dilatant flow). CDP uses non-associative flow on the
shear surface (i.e., the flow potential is not associated
with the yield surface) and associated flow on the cap
surface.
3. Modified cap Drucker–Prager model

A good overview of the development of plasticity The yield surface for the CDP material model is
theory and constitutive modeling of soil is given in described in terms of stress invariant functions of the
Scott (1985). Schofield and Wroth (1968) extended stress tensor, S (a term in bold face denotes a matrix
plasticity theory to the critical state concept, defining or tensor). The particular invariants used for the CDP
either contractile or dilatant deformation of porous model as implemented in ABAQUS (HKS, 1998) are
material as a function of its specific volume or void defined as:
ratio. In critical state theory, this rule is developed (1) The invariant, p, is the equivalent pressure
around the concept of a bcritical state,Q where the stress, or the negative octahedral normal stress, r oct
plastic shearing deformation occurs at a constant (Jaeger and Cook, 1969), which determines uniform
volume. Perhaps the most famous critical state compression or dilation:
model, the Cam-Clay model, was developed based
on the behavior of clays. The concepts are equally 1
p ¼
roct ¼
r : I: ð1Þ
applicable to defining the shearing and volumetric 3
behavior of granular materials, such as granular soils
or snow (Wood, 1990). Although the concepts are where I is the identity matrix and the operator b : Q
applicable for both cohesive and granular materials, denotes a scalar product.
the behavior of the granular materials has not been (2) The invariant, q, is the deviatoric stress, also
explored as thoroughly, particularly regarding the called the Mises equivalent stress, which determines
influence of deviatoric stress on the yield surface, distortion:
which is less clearly defined in soils but may take on rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a much different shape than the yield surface of 3
q¼ ðS:SÞ ð2Þ
metals. 2
Liu (1994) used the Drucker–Prager plasticity
where S is the stress deviator
model for modeling the sliding of rubber blocks on
snow. Mundl et al. (1997) extended Liu’s work
S ¼ r þ pI:
using a multi-surface plasticity model to optimize
the snow behavior under both shear and compres-
This form of the second invariant is analogous—but
sion. Their intent, however, was to simulate
not identical—to the octahedral shear stress put
shearing forces of snow compacted on roads
forward by Jaeger and Cook (1969).
(density of 500 kg/m3), which is a significantly
(3) The invariant, r, is
different material than that encountered during
cross-country mobility on fresh snow (density of ! 13
200–300 kg/m3). For this study, the plasticity 9
r¼ SdS:S : ð3Þ
model used was the well-documented Capped 2
Drucker–Prager.
Cap plasticity models account for both the com- The bd Q operator denotes matrix multiplication.
pression and shearing of an isotropic material. The In the formulation of the CDP model, the second
modified Capped Drucker–Prager (CDP) model has and third invariants are combined to create an
 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211 197

Fig. 2. (a) Modified Drucker–Prager yield surface in deviatoric space compared with (b) other common yield surfaces (HKS, 1998).
198 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211
alternate expression, t, the deviatoric stress measure
(HKS, 1998),
2 ! !3 3
q 1 1 r 5
t ¼ 41 þ
1
ð4Þ
2 K K q
where K is the flow stress ratio (ratio of tensile
strength to compressive strength) and describes the
yield dependence on the third stress invariant, defin-
ing the shape of the yield surface in the deviatoric
plane. For K=1, the yield surface is circular (von
Mises yield), as shown in Fig. 2a, and the failure
stress is the same in tension and compression. For the
surface to remain convex, K is limited to values of
0.778 to 1. For K=0.778, the CDP model can be used
to approximate the Mohr–Coulomb surface shown in
Fig. 2b.
The subsequent model parameters are defined in
the pressure-deviatoric plane (also called the meridia-
nal, p–q, or p–t plane). For the modified cap Drucker–
Prager model used in this study, the yield surface is a
modified von Mises yield (i.e., the material constant
K=1.0); hence, Eq. (4) reduces to t=q, eliminating the
effects of the invariant, r. In the p–t plane, the yield
surface has two major segments (Fig. 3):
(1) The Drucker–Prager portion of the curve (anal-
ogous to the Mohr–Coulomb line) defines shear
deformation.
(2) The cap portion of the surface defines the
intersection with the pressure axis.
Fig. 3. Modified cap Drucker–Prager yield surface in the p–t plane (HKS, 1998).
The following equations define the yield criteria in
each section of the yield surface. For Drucker–Prager
shear or distortional failure
Fs ¼ t
ptanb
d ¼ 0 ð5Þ
where d is the Drucker–Prager material cohesion and
b is the Drucker–Prager material angle of friction.
These are analogous to Mohr–Coulomb cohesion, c,
and the internal angle of friction, /, respectively.
For the cap region of compactive–dilatant failure
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u " #2ffi
u Rt
Fc ¼ tðp
pa Þ2 þ
ð1 þ a
a=cosbÞ

Rðd þ pa tanbÞ ¼ 0 ð6Þ
where a is a transition parameter, ranging typically
from 0.0 to 0.05, that smoothes the transition between
the shear failure and the cap failure, R is a material
parameter controlling the shape of the cap (or the cap
eccentricity parameter), and p a is the intersection of
the shear line and the cap (in absence of a transition
surface) and relates to the cap hardening behavior
according to
pb
Rd
pa ¼ ð7Þ
ð1 þ RtanbÞ
where the mean hydrostatic pressure, p b, is a function
pl
of the volumetric plastic strain, e vol . This functional
pl
relationship, p b=f(qvol ), is the hardening law which
 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211 199

defines the pressure–volume relationship during com-
pression of the material at the cap failure surface.
The transition surface between the shear and the
cap failure is defined as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
" #2
u 
u a
t 2
Ft ¼ ðp
pa Þ þ t
1

cosb

aðd þ pa tanbÞ ¼ 0
3.1. Hardening law
The pressure–volume relationships define both
hardening and softening through volume changes
based on how the cap portion of the yield surfaces
expands and contracts. The cap is generally spherical
or ellipsoidal, and the material either hardens or
softens by expanding or contracting the cap, respec-
tively. This behavior is defined in a pressure–volume
relationship called a hardening law. The pressure–
volume relationship is often exponential and, there-
fore, can be modeled using an exponential hardening
law. In cases where exponential hardening is not a
good fit, as is common in soils, the hardening law can
also be represented in a piecewise linear approach
using the experimental data (e.g., Fig. 4) as a table of
pl
p b and e vol pairs. The piecewise approach is recom-
mended by HKS (1998) for a better fit to the data and
better model performance; this approach was used in
this study.
3.2. Plastic flow

The plastic flow is defined by an elliptical shaped,
ðd þ pa tanbÞ
flow potential surface. Flow is associative (normal to
the surface) in the cap region; therefore, the equation
ð8Þ for the flow surface is identical to the equation for the
cap yield surface. In the transition and shear region,
the flow is non-associative (flow potential is inde-
pendent of the failure surface), and the flow surface,
G s, is defined as (HKS, 1998)
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u" #2 " #2ffi
u t
Gs ¼ t ðpa
pÞtanb þ :
1 þ a
a=cosb
ð9Þ
4. Material parameter determination
Extreme changes in snow properties with time,
temperature gradients, applied load, and deformation
prohibit model parameter acquisition from the same
snow. Consequently, approximations were made by
estimating parameters using test data from snow of

Fig. 4. Piecewise linear models of the hardening law for low density snow-based on Abele and Gow’s (1975) experimental data—for fresh
(S200) and age hardened snow (H200). The rapid rise in pressure stress for high volumetric strain (N1.5) occurs as the snow is compacted to the
density of ice.
200 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211
similar characteristics (density, age and snow type).
The type of snow modeled was a natural snow with
a density of 150–250 kg/m3 at moderate temper-
atures (between
10 and
1 8C). Test data were
gathered from the field and from the literature to
match this snow type as closely as possible. Because
data were gathered from several studies, the snow
was not exactly the same in crystal structure;
however, the cumulative result can be considered
an baverageQ snow response taken over all of the
available field and laboratory data. A discussion of
selecting the initial values of the material parameters
follows.
4.1. Elastic properties
For snow deformation, the plastic deformation is
much greater than elastic deformation; however, the
elastic deformation is not negligible. The basic elastic
parameters, Young’s modulus E and Poisson’s ratio m
were estimated based on data compiled by Shapiro et
al. (1997). Because the elastic modulus is a strong
function of density, varying over 4 orders of
magnitude, the elastic modulus should ideally be
modeled as a function of the density as a state
variable. For this study, however, Young’s modulus
was held constant at a value equivalent to snow
having a density of 300–400 kg/m3. At snow densities
below this, the elastic contribution is considered
minimal. Based on this, a Young’s modulus in the
range of 1–20 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 was
used for initial model parameter selection.
4.2. Yield surface
The parameters defining the shear portion of the
yield surface for the Drucker–Prager model can be
calculated from the Mohr–Coulomb cohesion, c, and
the internal angle of friction, /. Assuming plane strain
response and non-dilatant flow, we can calculate the
Drucker–Prager material cohesion, d, and the
Drucker–Prager material angle of friction, b from
(HKS, 2001)
tanb ¼ 1:73sin/ ð10Þ
d ¼ c1:73cos/: ð11Þ
Acquiring apparent values for cohesion and fric-
tion angle, cV and /V from shear loading of snow
under a vehicle tire and from a ring shear device is
discussed by Blaisdell et al. (1990) and Alger and
Osborne (1989). Both methods were applied to field
measurements on undisturbed snow with a density
ranging from 60 to 250 kg/m3 and temperatures from

2 to
16 8C. From these data, Shoop (2001)
determined that for a snow density of about 200 kg/
m3, c=2.14–43 kPa and /=8.98–148. Because of the
nature of the test, these values may be more
representative of the interface shear. However, similar
values of cohesion (approximately 20–30 kPa) were
reported in Shapiro et al. (1997). These values yield a
Drucker–Prager d ranging from 3.7 to 72 kPa and b
ranging from 15.28 to 22.58.
Parameters describing the shape of the cap were
adjusted based on model response. The flow stress
ratio, K, was held at 1.0. This agrees with data
presented in Shapiro et al. (1997), indicating nearly
equal values of compressive and tensile strength for
low-density snow. The cap eccentricity parameter, R,
was chosen based on typical values for earth materials
having a very steep compaction cap (R=0.1 to
0.0001). The transition surface radius, a, was set to
0.0 (no transition). The initial cap yield surface
pl
position e vol |0 was arbitrarily set to 0.001 to allow
initial softening as needed. These material parameters
were refined based on model response and compar-
ison to experimental data.
4.3. Hardening law
The hardening law was based on tabular data
obtained from compression test data published in
Abele and Gow (1975) using three different tests of
snow having similar density, along with values
calculated from the final pressure–density pairs of
an additional 21 tests. As the measurements are from
one-dimensional compression or consolidation (oed-
ometer) tests, by application of a vertical load to a
sample within a rigid cylinder (i.e., radially confined
uniaxial strain), the calculation of the mean hydro-
static pressure, p b, is not straightforward. Two simple
approaches are to assume that r 1=r 2=r 3, which gives
p b=
r 1; alternately we can assume r 2=r 3=0, which
gives p b=
1/3r 1. These two cases bound the sol-
ution. An initial hardening table was derived based on
 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211 201

the average of Abele and Gow tests on warm, 200 kg/
m3 snow (tests 10 and 29) using p b=
r 1 (H200 curve
in Fig. 4); this table was modified within the range of

1/3r 1zp bz
r 1 during model calibration.
5. Model calibration using laboratory and field
data
Finite element models simulating a radially con-
fined uniaxial compression test and a plate-sinkage
test were used to refine the material properties given
in the previous sections.
5.1. Uniaxial compression
For the uniaxial compression model, a single
element model was determined to be adequate after
multi-element models gave the same results. Fig. 5
gives a plot of all of the data from Abele and Gow
(1975) with a density ranging from 140 to 230 kg/m3
and temperature between
7 8C and freezing.
Unloading was not measured in the laboratory experi-
ments. As with Fig. 1, we see a broad range in the
response of the snow in experimental data; this scatter
in the data is not explained by Abele and Gow (1975).
They mention that b[s]ome samples were stored at
constant temperature before testing,Q indicating that
aging of the samples indeed occurred, though it was
not documented how long each individual sample sat
at constant temperature prior to testing. Furthermore,
there was no attempt to categorize the snow type of
each individual sample (e.g., grauple, dendritic, etc.);
without such information on sample age and micro-
structure it is impossible to determine the root cause
of the scatter. Nevertheless, it is clear that for the same
density range snow can behave very differently and
this can be attributed to the microstructure of the
snow, be it the structure of the snow when it falls or
the time-dependent metamorphic changes in snow
structure; thus, we seek to have the capability to
model both the soft and hard snow conditions evident
in low density snow. This was done by selecting two
sets of model parameters and hardening curves to
capture the range in response of the snow.
Fig. 5 compares the uniaxial experimental data and
finite element model results. The nomenclature used
for the CDP material models are bS200Q for weak or
soft snow in the density range of 200 kg/m3, and
bH200Q for strong or hard snow in the same density

Fig. 5. Comparison of model and experimental data for uniaxial compression tests on low-density snow. The data are from Abele and Gow
(1975): snow temperature ranges from 0 to
7 8C, snow density ranges from 140 to 230 kg/m3.
202 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211

range. The agreement between modeled and measured geometry, with vertical shear surfaces along the
material behavior is reasonably good for the two snow/plate interface. The vertical frictional surfaces
material models, with one model capturing the softer allowed these elements to slide, closely mimicking
response of Abele and Gow snow data and the second the clearly defined shear failure surfaces observed in
model representing harder response of the snow. Table the field. The use of slip planes was a reasonable
1 gives the material parameters used for each of these compromise that allowed us to model this test
snow models. The hardening curves for each of these geometry without having excessive element distortion
models are also plotted in Fig. 4. (in the vicinity of the sharp edge of the plate) that
prevented the model running to completion. The slide
5.2. Plate sinkage planes were modeled using a contact surface with
Coulomb friction of l=0.3. As the cohesion of low
Comparisons with three plate sinkage tests are density snow is very small (5 kPa), we found that
presented: two field tests and one laboratory test. The adding a failure criteria to this slip plane (i.e., the
first field test used, designated bKRC Runway,Q bond between adjacent elements on the slip plane
consisted of pushing a 20-cm (8-in.)-diameter rigid would break if the shear stress at that point exceeded
plate, originally at the surface, into 39.2 cm (15.5 in.) the cohesion strength, d, of the material) did not
of fresh snow with average density of 300 kg/m3 significantly change the simulated load–sinkage
(Alger and Osborne, 1989). This was modeled using curves. This suggests that frictional sliding along this
a 2D axis-symmetric representation of the test failure plane dominates and including only the
frictional resistance along these slide planes is
Table 1 adequate for modeling this case.
Parameters for the modified Capped Drucker–Prager model of low The plate was lowered by constraining the surface
density snow (150–250 kg/m3) nodes radially while displacing them into the snow,
Parameter S200 H200 effectively creating a no-slip contact between the plate
Young’s modulus (MPa), E 1.379 13.79 and snow. Both the S200 and H200 material
Poisson’s ratio, m 0.3 parameters were used to simulate this condition. The
Drucker–Prager cohesion (kPa), d 5 deformed model of the field test is shown in Fig. 6.
Drucker–Prager angle of friction (deg), b 22.538
Cap eccentricity, R 0.02
Fig. 7 gives a comparison of the field data and the
Initial cap yield surface position, epl
vol |0 0.001 model results. Both of the snow models do a fair job
Transition surface radius, a 0.0 of reproducing the field data: the S200 model follows
Flow stress ratio, K 1.0 the low strain region of the curve but under predicts
Average snow density (kg/m3) 200 the peak load; the H200 model does a very good job
Hardening law
of capturing the peak forces but it over predicts the
force at the low end (plate sinkage 0–0.2 m) of the
Mean hydrostatic pressure (Pa) e pl
vol
loading curve.
S200 H200 The second test, designated bKRC Texas field,Q
113.76 113.76 0 used the same size plate as above, but the overall
0.017106 0.05106 0.593 snow depth was 51.4 cm (20.2 in). The upper layer of
0.033106 0.1106 0.669
0.067106 0.2106 0.806
snow was fresh snow with a density of 110 kg/m3, and
0.167106 0.5106 0.944 the lower layer was older snow with a density of 230–
0.333106 1.0106 1.083 280 kg/m3 (Alger and Osborne, 1989). This was
0.667106 2.0106 1.299 modeled using the same basic geometry as the KRC
0.933106 2.8106 1.455 runway described above, except the snow depth used
1.083106 3.25106 1.475
2.0106 6.0106 1.50
in the model matched that of the field, 51.4 cm, and
2.0107 6.0107 1.514 the snow was modeled in three ways:
The softer snow response is modeled using the bS200Q parameters
while the harder snow response is modeled with the bH200Q (1) The entire snow depth was modeled using H200
material parameters. parameters.
 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211
Fig. 6. Deformed mesh for simulation of plate sinkage tests
performed on the KRC Runway: H200 model parameters used.
Fig. 7. Comparison of plate sinkage KRC Runway field test data (Alger and Osborne, 1989) ( S ) to the model results (lines).
203
(2) The entire snow depth was modeled using S200
parameters.
(3) The snow was modeled in layers, the upper 13.1
cm of the snow was modeled using the S200
material parameters, and the remaining snow depth
was modeled using the H200 material parameters.
The results of these simulations are compared
with the field data in Fig. 8. Though all three models
provide reasonable agreement, the S200 model tends
under-predict the peak load, while the H200 model
tends to over-predict the forces at low sinkage
depths. The two-layer model does a better job of
capturing the peak forces while still following the
overall force trace. This simulation supports the
notion that there needs to be some consideration in
modeling that takes into account age hardening (or
microstructure) of snow where two samples of snow
that have similar or identical density differ in
strength owing to one being fresh snow and the
other having strengthened over time because of
sintering and metamorphism. In this simulation the
upper layer of fresh snow is weaker than the
204 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211

Fig. 8. Comparison of plate sinkage KRC Texas field test data (Alger and Osborne, 1989) (S ) to the model results (lines).

underlying old snow, and the differences in material 606050 cm deep with an average initial density
parameters attempt to reproduce this condition. of 180 kg/m3 (Shoop and Alger, 1998). This same
The laboratory plate sinkage test pushed a 20-cm geometry was captured in the three-dimensional
(8-in.)-diameter rigid plate into a cube of snow model simulation of this test. The snow was modeled

Fig. 9. Comparison of modeled (lines) and measured (Shoop and Alger, 1998) ( S ) plate sinkage results for laboratory experiments.
 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211 205

Fig. 10. Modeled snow density (kg/m3) of plate sinkage test for Capped Drucker–Prager material (laboratory test simulation at left and field test
simulation at right). Both models shown used the H200 material parameters (Shoop et al., 1999a,b).

using both the S200 and H200 material parameters. good job of capturing the force–displacement curve
The model results are compared with the lab experi- for a penetration of the plate into the snow greater
ment in Fig. 9. The H200 snow simulation does a very than 0.1 m. For plate penetration less than 0.1 m, the

Fig. 11. Measured displacement and snow density in laboratory plate sinkage test (after Shoop and Alger, 1998).
206 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211
H200 model over predicts the force; the S200 model
in general is too soft and does not accurately
reproduce the data for these snow conditions.
In the model, snow density can be calculated from
the volumetric plastic strain. The snow density values
from the models are shown in Fig. 10. These densities
can be compared to snow densities measured under
the plate, as shown in Fig. 11. The maximum
volumetric inelastic strain in the plate sinkage model
occurred immediately below the plate at values of
approximately 0.5, which is equivalent to a snow
density of 360 kg/m3, whereas in the experiment a
very dense (440–520 kg/m3) bulb of snow was
observed extending approximately 5 cm below the
plate (Fig. 11). Below this, the modeled snow density
varies from about 240 kg/m3 under the plate to about
215 kg/m3 near the ground. Yet, the measured density
shown in Fig. 11 is nearly constant at 290–310 kg/m3
below the high density bulb—other experimental
results from Shoop and Alger (1998) show that the
density under the bulb can vary more widely (e.g.,
270–350 kg/m3) than that shown in Fig. 11. Thus, the
model does not clearly capture the high density bulb
observed in the laboratory experiments, but rather
appears to smear out the variation in density over the
entire snow depth. Yet, the predicted density of the
snow adjacent to the plate compares quite favorably
with the measured lab data with both model and
experiment demonstrating a slight rise in density due
to lateral compaction.
6. Discussion
The comparison of the uniaxial data to the model
results shows that the S200 and H200 models may not
be capable of capturing the specific response of a
particular snow microstructure, yet using these two
models can be effective at bounding the snow
response in this density range, with S200 capturing
the lower bound associated with soft snow and H200
approaching the upper bound (hard snow). This
concept is further reinforced with comparisons to
plate sinkage tests. For both of the field cases (KRC
Runway and Texas Field) it appears that the two
models do a very good job of bounding the scatter in
the snow response, and the two-layer model of the
KRC Texas Field gives an average through the data.
The material parameters presented in Table 1 in
some respect dictate that these models would
provide bounding conditions. The elastic modulus
for the two models (S200 and H200) roughly
follows the bounding range given by Shapiro et
al. (1997): 1–20 MPa. By increasing the elastic
modulus within this range. the snow can be made
harder and btuningQ of this parameter within this
range can help match specific field data. Likewise,
the hardening curves given in Table 1 are for the
bounds
1/3r 1zp bz
r 1. These hardening tables
could also be modified within this range to match a
particular set of experimental data. However, the
ability of these models, used together, to capture
the upper and lower bound of the snow response
can be of great use by providing the expected range
of snow response in this density range, not just the
average. Capturing the range of snow response,
when so little is known a priori about the age or
microstructure of the snow that will be encountered
in the field, is far more useful than having a single
model that matches a specific set of snow
conditions that may or may not be representative
of the field conditions at another time or location.
7. Wheel on snow application
Turning now to a prototyping application, we
developed a model of a wheel rolling through snow
and compared these results to measurements of the
performance of the CRREL instrumented vehicle
(CIV) rolling through fresh snow. The CIV, originally
a 1977 AMC Jeep Cherokee, is instrumented to
measure vertical, longitudinal, and lateral forces at
the tire interface, wheel speed at each wheel, true
vehicle speed, and steering angles. In this study we
used available data for the CIV documenting the tire
sinkage depth (rut depth), the longitudinal resistance
force of the wheel as the vehicle moved through the
fresh snow, and the snow density surrounding the tire
rut (Blaisdell et al., 1990; Green and Blaisdell, 1991;
Richmond, 1995).
To reduce run time, the tire was modeled as a rigid
wheel (a rigid analytic surface). Fig. 12 shows the
model geometry and the resulting deformed snow
surface for 20-cm-deep snow. Taking advantage of the
symmetry of the problem, we modeled the simulation
 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211
Fig. 12. Model of a rigid wheel rolling through snow. Material parameters for S200 were used.
in half space. No slip plane was needed to model this
case, as the rounded transition between the wheel
btreadQ and bsidewallQ appeared to prevent excessive
distortion of the elements in this region, allowing the
model to run to completion. The wheel motion was
simulated as follows:
(1) The wheel was allowed to settle unto the snow
surface under the influence of gravity and its
own weight.
(2) The hub of the wheel was accelerated to 2.24 m/
s (5 miles/h); concurrently, an angular velocity
was applied to the hub to assure zero slip
between the snow surface and the wheel.
(3) Once the hub velocity reached 2.24 m/s, the
velocity was maintained constant for the remain-
der of the simulation.
The model was run using both the S200 and H200
material parameters. The performance of the CIV was
simulated for snow depths ranging from 5 to 50 cm.
The coefficient of friction between the wheel and the
snow was set at 0.3.
207
From the model we determined the steady state
reaction force at the hub (i.e., the resistance force to
pull the wheel forward) and the steady state wheel
sinkage depth into the snow. These steady state
values were obtained from the portion of the
simulation at which the hub was moving at a constant
velocity. The resistance force was normalized by the
vertical load on the hub (the sprung and unsprung
mass carried by that tire). These results, along with
the field data, are plotted in Fig. 13. The S200 model
does a very good job of predicting the depth that the
tire sinks into the snow (Fig. 13a) over the full range
of the available field data, yet the H200 model tends
to under predict the sinkage depth. This is not
surprising, as these data were taken in freshly fallen
snow and the S200 model should be more represen-
tative of this condition.
The normalized resistance force (Fig. 13b) pre-
dicted by the S200 model is a bit high in comparison
to field data, yet it does a reasonable job of capturing
the upper envelope of the data. As such, it tends to be
conservative with respect to predicting the rolling
resistance forces on the tire. Again, because the data
208 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211

Fig. 13. Comparison of the CDP snow model predictions to field data for (a) sinkage and (b) normalized motion resistance.

were taken in fresh snow, the S200 model provides a
better estimate of the rolling resistance than the H200
model.
Fig. 14 compares the deformation of the snow in
the model and field as well as the modeled and
measured snow density under the tire. The model does
a good job of reproducing the overall snow deforma-
tion shape and matches the compaction density of the
snow under the tire. Because the snow density varies
with depth in the field, yet was held constant in the
 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211 209

Fig. 14. Comparison of (a) the field snow deformation shape (Richmond, 1995) to (b) the model and comparison of (b) the predicted snow
density under a tire to (c) density measurements from Richmond (1995). The snow depth is 19 cm. The model uses the S200 material
parameters. The black lines in the snow shown in (a) are chalk lines used to document the deformation of the snow as the wheel passes
through it.
210 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211
model, it is more difficult to directly compare the
variation in density adjacent to the tire side wall. Yet,
it is clear that, in the field, there is some lateral
compaction of the snow adjacent the tire side wall,
evidenced by the lateral deformation of the vertical
chalk lines in the snow (Fig. 14a); this lateral
compaction is predicted by the model as well. We
note that the snow density at the corners of the tire is
about 20% higher in the model than that measured in
the field.
8. Conclusions
The modified Capped Drucker–Prager constitutive
law was used for modeling the macroscale material
behavior of relatively warm (
1 to
10 8C) low
density snow (150–250 kg/m3) using the finite
element method. Available laboratory and field data
were used to obtain suitable material parameters and
calibrate the model. Two sets of material parameters
were developed, one for describing the behavior of
bsoftQ snow, and the second for describing the
response of bhardQ snow. The derivation of these
two cases for describing snow in this density range
help to capture the structure-dependent differences in
snow strength attributed to snow type and to age
hardening or sintering of the snow over time. These
models are not intended to represent a specific snow
microstructure, but rather provide description of the
baverageQ snow behavior in this density and temper-
ature range.
The snow models were compared to laboratory and
field measurements of three load cases: radially
confined uniaxial compression, plate sinkage tests,
and a wheel rolling through new fallen snow. This
illustrates the application and validation of the
constitutive model under a wide variety of geometries
and loading conditions. The agreement for all of these
geometries is very good. It is clear from a two-layer
simulation of plate sinkage tests conducted in the field
that the use of the soft snow (S200) parameters for the
top layer and the hard snow (H200) parameters for the
bottom layer improves the ability of the simulation to
reproduce the measured load trace. The plate sinkage
and wheel-on-snow models illustrate the ability to
also model the compaction density of the snow as it is
loaded.
Acknowledgements
This effort was funded by the U.S. Army High
Fidelity Ground Platform and Terrain Mechanics
Science and Technology Objective, Terrain Mechanics
Models for All-Season Terrain, Work Unit. This work
was supported in part by a grant of computer time from
the DOD High Performance Computing Modernization
Program at the Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vickburg, MS and the Army Tank-automotive
and Armaments Command, Warren, Michigan.
References
Abele, G., Gow, A., 1975. Compressibility Characteristics of
Undisturbed Snow. Research Report 336. U.S. Army Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
Ahlvin, R., Shoop, S.A., 1995. Methodology for predicting for
winter conditions in the NATO reference mobility model. 5th
North American Conf. of the ISTVS. Saskatoon, SK, Canada,
May 1995, pp. 320 – 334.
Alger, R., 1988. Effect of snow characteristics on shear strength.
Contract Report No. DACA89-88-K-004. Keweenaw Research
Center, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI.
Alger, R., Osborne, M., 1989. Snow characterization field data
collection results. Final Report No. ACA89-85-K-002. Kewee-
naw Research Center, Michigan Technological University,
Houghton, MI.
Armstrong, R.L., 1980. An analysis of compressive strain in
adjacent temperature-gradient and equi-temperature layers in a
natural snow cover. J. Glaciol. 26 (94), 283 – 289.
Aubel, T., 1993. FEM simulation of the interaction between elastic
tyre and soft soil. 11th International Conference of the ISTVS,
Lake Tahoe, NV, vol. 2, pp. 791 – 802.
Aubel, T., 1994. The interaction between the rolling tyres and soft
soil FEM Simulation by VENUS and validation. 6th European
Conf. Of the ISTVS, Vienna, vol. 1, pp. 169 – 188.
Bailey, A.D., Johnson, C.E., 1989. A soil compaction model for
cylindrical stress states. Trans. ASAE 32 (3), 822 – 825.
Blaisdell, G.L., Richmond, P.W., Shoop, S.A., Green, C.E., Alger,
R.G., 1990. Wheels and tracks in snow: validation study of the
CRREL shallow snow mobility model. CRREL Report No. 90-
9. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
Chi, L., Tessier, S., 1995. Finite element analysis of soil compaction
reduction with high flotation tires. 5th North American Conf. of
the ISTVS, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, pp. 167 – 176.
Fervers, C.W., 1994. FE simulations of tyre-profile effects on
traction on soft soil. 6th European Conf. of the ISTVS, Vienna,
Austria, pp. 618 – 633.
Foster, W.A., Johnson, C.E., Raper, R.L., Shoop, S.A., 1995. Soil
deformation and stress analysis under a rolling wheel. North
American Conf. of the ISTVS. Saskatoon, SK, Canada, May
1995, pp. 194 – 203.
 R.B. Haehnel, S.A. Shoop / Cold Regions Science and Technology 40 (2004) 193–211
Fukue, M., 1979. Mechanical Performance of Snow under Loading.
Tokai Univ. Press. (based on author’s thesis, McGill University,
1977).
Green, C.E., Blaisdell, G.L., 1991. US Army Wheeled Versus
Tracked Vehicle Mobility Performance Test Program. Report no.
2: Mobility in shallow snow. U.S. Waterways Experiment
Station, Technical Report GL-91-7.
HKS (Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen), 1998. ABAQUS Theory and
User’s Manuals. Pawtucket, RI.
HKS (Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen), 2001. Analysis of Geo-
technical problems with ABAQUS. ABAQUS Course Notes.
Pawtucket, RI.
Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., 1969. Fundamentals of Rock Mechan-
ics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Lade, P.V., Kim, M.K., 1995. Single hardening constitutive model
for soil, rock and concrete. Int. J. Solids Struct. 32 (14),
1963 – 1978.
Liu, C., 1994. Traction Mechanisms of Automobile Tires on Snow.
PhD dissertation, Vienna University of Technology. Vienna,
Austria.
Liu, C.H., Wong, J.Y., 1996. Numerical simulations of tire–soil
interaction based on critical state soil mechanics. J. Terramechs.
33 (5), 209 – 222.
Meschke, G., Liu, C., Mang, H.A., 1996. Large strain finite-element
analysis of snow. J. Eng. Mech., July, 581 – 591.
Miyori, A., Shiraishi, M., Yoshinaga, H., Naoaki, I., 2002.
Simulation of tire performance on snow. Proceedings Interna-
tional Tire Exhibition and Conference. Akron, OH.
Mundl, R., Meschke, G., Leiderer, W., 1997. Friction mechanism
of tread blocks on snow surfaces. Tire Sci. Technol. 25 (4),
245 – 264.
Pi, W.S., 1988. Dynamic tire/soil contact surface interaction model
for aircraft ground operations. J. Aircr. 25 (11), 1038 – 1044.
Richmond, P.W., 1995. Motion resistance of wheeled vehicles in
snow. CRREL Rpt. 95-7. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
211
Richmond, P.W., Shoop, S.A., Blaisdell, G.L., 1995. Cold regions
mobility models. CRREL Report 95-1. U.S. Army Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
Saliba, J.E., 1990. Elastic–viscoplastic finite-element program for
modeling tire–soil interaction. J. Aircr. 27 (4), 350 – 357.
Schofield, A.N., Wroth, C.P., 1968. Critical State Soil Mechanics.
McGraw-Hill, London, England.
Scott, R.F., 1985. Plasticity and constitutive relations in soil
mechanics. J. Geotech. Eng. 11 (5), 563 – 605.
Shapiro, L., Johnson, J., Sturm, M., Blaisdell, G., 1997. Snow
Mechanics: Review of the State of Knowledge and Applica-
tions. CRREL Report 97-3. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
Shoop, S.A., 2001. Finite element modeling of tire–terrain
interaction. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Shoop, S., Alger, R., 1998. Snow deformation beneath a vertically
loaded plate. Proceedings, ASCE Cold Regions Specialty
Conference. Duluth, Minnesota.
Shoop, S., Haehnel, R., Kestler, K., Stebbins, K., Alger, R., 1999.
Finite element analysis of a wheel rolling in snow. Proceed-
ings ASCE Cold Region Engineering Conference, Lincoln, NH,
pp. 519 – 530.
Shoop, S., Haehnel, R., Kestler, K., Stebbings, K., Alger, R.,
1999. Snow–tire FEA. Tire Technology International, June,
pp. 20 – 25.
Shoop, S., Lacombe, J., Haehnel, R., 2001. Modeling tire perform-
ance for winter conditions, tire technology international. Annual
Review of Tire Material and the Tire Manufacturing Technol-
ogy, Dec., pp. 10 – 14.
Voitkovsky, K.F., Bozhinsky, A.N., Golubev, V.N., Laptev, M.N.,
Zhigulsky, A.A., Slesarenko, Yu.Ye., 1975. Creep induced
changes in structure and density of snow, international
symposium on snow mechanics. IAHS–AISH Publication, vol.
114. Grindelwald, Switzerland, pp. 171 – 179.
Wood, D.M., 1990. Soil Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechanics.
Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.