the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Deformation lines in Arctic sea ice: intersection angles distribution and mechanical properties
Abstract. In Arctic sea ice, the intersection angles between Linear Kinematic Features (LKFs) are linked to the internal mechanical properties. Sea ice rheological models struggle to reproduce the intersection angles between LKFs in Arctic sea ice. We aim to obtain an intersection angle distribution (IAD) from observational data to serve as a reference for high-resolution sea ice models and to infer the mechanical properties of the sea ice cover. We use the sea ice vorticity to discriminate between acute and obtuse LKFs intersection angles within two sea ice deformation datasets: the RGPS and a new dataset from the MOSAiC drift experiment. Acute angles dominate the IAD, with single peaks at 48º ± 2 and 45º ± 7. The IAD agrees well between both datasets, despite the difference in scale, time periods, and geographical location. The divergence and shear rates of the LKFs also have the same distribution. The dilatancy angle (the ratio of shear and divergence) is not correlated with the intersection angle. Using the IAD, we infer an internal angle of friction in sea ice of µI= 0.66 ± 0.02 and µI= 0.75 ± 0.05. The shape of the yield curve or the plastic potential derived from the observed IAD resembles the teardrop or a Mohr–Coulomb shape. With those new insights, sea ice rheologies used in models can be adapted or re-designed to improve the representation of sea-ice dynamics.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(4856 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4856 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1481', Harry Heorton, 24 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1481/egusphere-2022-1481-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to the reviewers - egusphere-2022-1481', Damien Ringeisen, 05 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1481/egusphere-2022-1481-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to the reviewers - egusphere-2022-1481', Damien Ringeisen, 05 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1481', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Feb 2023
The paper fills an important gap in the knowledge of LKF characteristics. I expect it to have an immediate impact on the modelling of sea ice rheology. It has a rigorous background, which leads to it being a bit technical and difficult to read in some places. A reread with a less expert reader in mind would beneficial.
Specific comments:
On figure 1 RGPS is blue and MOSAiC red while on the other figures you use orange and blue respectively. Please make the colours consistent to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Line 110: You say you want to exclude the influence of the coast but on the figure the blue area almost touches the coastline. Can you explain how much should be included and why more precisely? Hutter et al. 2019 commented on the influence of the coastline on LKF distribution further away than this, can you rule out an influence on the angles?
Line 208: This requires more explanation on what is wrong with the Erlingsson framework
Line 328: The large number of small non-conjugate angles in the MOSAiC dataset really stands out. Is the problem with LKFs being cut in two parts you mention sufficient to explain the large difference with RGPS or might there be an effect of the resolution or some other difference?
There are some small mistakes:
Line 169: figure 5a instead of 5b
Line 308: typo in 0.66±2
Line 240: the reference is wrong
Line 241 and following: has two versions of the same reference
Line 248: typo in the reference
Line 477: correct the doi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1481-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply to the reviewers - egusphere-2022-1481', Damien Ringeisen, 05 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1481/egusphere-2022-1481-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to the reviewers - egusphere-2022-1481', Damien Ringeisen, 05 May 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1481', Harry Heorton, 24 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1481/egusphere-2022-1481-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to the reviewers - egusphere-2022-1481', Damien Ringeisen, 05 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1481/egusphere-2022-1481-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to the reviewers - egusphere-2022-1481', Damien Ringeisen, 05 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1481', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Feb 2023
The paper fills an important gap in the knowledge of LKF characteristics. I expect it to have an immediate impact on the modelling of sea ice rheology. It has a rigorous background, which leads to it being a bit technical and difficult to read in some places. A reread with a less expert reader in mind would beneficial.
Specific comments:
On figure 1 RGPS is blue and MOSAiC red while on the other figures you use orange and blue respectively. Please make the colours consistent to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Line 110: You say you want to exclude the influence of the coast but on the figure the blue area almost touches the coastline. Can you explain how much should be included and why more precisely? Hutter et al. 2019 commented on the influence of the coastline on LKF distribution further away than this, can you rule out an influence on the angles?
Line 208: This requires more explanation on what is wrong with the Erlingsson framework
Line 328: The large number of small non-conjugate angles in the MOSAiC dataset really stands out. Is the problem with LKFs being cut in two parts you mention sufficient to explain the large difference with RGPS or might there be an effect of the resolution or some other difference?
There are some small mistakes:
Line 169: figure 5a instead of 5b
Line 308: typo in 0.66±2
Line 240: the reference is wrong
Line 241 and following: has two versions of the same reference
Line 248: typo in the reference
Line 477: correct the doi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1481-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply to the reviewers - egusphere-2022-1481', Damien Ringeisen, 05 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1481/egusphere-2022-1481-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to the reviewers - egusphere-2022-1481', Damien Ringeisen, 05 May 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Linear Kinematic Features (leads & pressure ridges) detected and tracked in RADARSAT Geophys- ical Processor System (RGPS) sea-ice deformation data from 1997 to 2008 Hutter, N., Zampieri, L., and Losch, M. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.898114
Model code and software
lkf_tools: a code to detect and track Linear Kinematic Features (LKFs) in sea-ice deformation data (Version v1.0) Hutter, N. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2560078
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
369 | 142 | 22 | 533 | 11 | 10 |
- HTML: 369
- PDF: 142
- XML: 22
- Total: 533
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Damien Ringeisen
Nils Hutter
Luisa von Albedyll
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4856 KB) - Metadata XML