the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How hard do we tap during snow stability tests?
Abstract. This study examines the impact force applied from hand taps during Extended Column Tests (ECT), a common method of assessing snow stability. The hand-tap loading method has inconsistencies across the United States, Canadian, and Norwegian written standards, as well as inherent subjectivity. We developed a device, the “tap-o-meter”, to measure the force-time curves during these taps and collected data from 286 practitioners, including avalanche forecasters and mountain guides in Scandinavia, Central Europe, and North America. Peak forces and loading rates are the metrics chosen to quantitatively compare the data. The mean, median, and inner quartile peak forces are distinctly different for each loading step (wrist, elbow and shoulder), as are the loading rates. However, there is significant overlap across the range of measurements and examples of participants with higher force wrist taps than other participants' shoulder taps. This overlap challenges the reliability and reproducibility of ECT results, potentially leading to dangerous interpretations in avalanche decision-making, forecasting and risk assessments. Therefore, we recommend updating the standards for the ECT. We propose two viable paths for future action: (1) define a target impact force-time curve for each tap level and develop tools and training to minimize variability in tapping force (2) assess the significance of the information derived from the number of taps. If deemed not highly valuable, we should consider reverting to a simpler binary interpretation that focuses exclusively on crack propagation.
-
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
(1337 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1337 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2921', Frank Techel, 14 Dec 2023
Dear Håvard and co-authors, dear Editor Yves Bühler
please find my detailed review in the attached document.
Kind regards
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Håvard Boutera Toft, 12 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2921', Ron Simenhois, 19 Jan 2024
Dear Håvard and co-authors, dear Editor Yves Bühler,
I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing this manuscript, which presents an impressive dataset with substantial depth. The insights derived from the data have the potential to significantly enhance our understanding of "surface-loading" stability test results.
While the manuscript holds promise, there are opportunities to enhance its readability and overall quality through a few modifications. Here are some general comments, with more specific feedback available in the attached document.
Introduction:
- The authors refer to several other papers. A clearer explanation of how these references relate to the current manuscript would enhance reader comprehension. A brief sentence or two elucidating the relevance of these references will improve the readability of this manuscript.
- The manuscript could benefit from explicitly stating what new contributions it brings to the existing body of knowledge, building upon already published material.
Methods:
- The methods section is well-crafted and easily understandable. However, a brief explanation of why peak force and loading rate were chosen as metrics for data analysis is missing. Incorporating elements from section 4.1.3 into the methods would provide valuable context.
Results:
- Consider including simple statistical analyses to assess the significance of differences between tapping levels. This addition would strengthen the overall robustness of the results.
- While the authors note a disparity in tapping force between women and men, the manuscript misses an opportunity to delve into the variability of tapping force within each gender group. Addressing this aspect would add depth to the analysis.
Discussion:
- A concise discussion regarding the relevance of the results within the snowpack load and stability assessment would be beneficial. This addition would help readers better grasp the broader implications of the findings.
For more detailed comments, please refer to the attached document.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Håvard Boutera Toft, 12 Mar 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2921', Frank Techel, 14 Dec 2023
Dear Håvard and co-authors, dear Editor Yves Bühler
please find my detailed review in the attached document.
Kind regards
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Håvard Boutera Toft, 12 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2921', Ron Simenhois, 19 Jan 2024
Dear Håvard and co-authors, dear Editor Yves Bühler,
I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing this manuscript, which presents an impressive dataset with substantial depth. The insights derived from the data have the potential to significantly enhance our understanding of "surface-loading" stability test results.
While the manuscript holds promise, there are opportunities to enhance its readability and overall quality through a few modifications. Here are some general comments, with more specific feedback available in the attached document.
Introduction:
- The authors refer to several other papers. A clearer explanation of how these references relate to the current manuscript would enhance reader comprehension. A brief sentence or two elucidating the relevance of these references will improve the readability of this manuscript.
- The manuscript could benefit from explicitly stating what new contributions it brings to the existing body of knowledge, building upon already published material.
Methods:
- The methods section is well-crafted and easily understandable. However, a brief explanation of why peak force and loading rate were chosen as metrics for data analysis is missing. Incorporating elements from section 4.1.3 into the methods would provide valuable context.
Results:
- Consider including simple statistical analyses to assess the significance of differences between tapping levels. This addition would strengthen the overall robustness of the results.
- While the authors note a disparity in tapping force between women and men, the manuscript misses an opportunity to delve into the variability of tapping force within each gender group. Addressing this aspect would add depth to the analysis.
Discussion:
- A concise discussion regarding the relevance of the results within the snowpack load and stability assessment would be beneficial. This addition would help readers better grasp the broader implications of the findings.
For more detailed comments, please refer to the attached document.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Håvard Boutera Toft, 12 Mar 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
305 | 133 | 35 | 473 | 23 | 24 |
- HTML: 305
- PDF: 133
- XML: 35
- Total: 473
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Samuel V. Verplanck
Markus Landrø
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1337 KB) - Metadata XML