the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 16 Apr 2024
Blade Hardness Gauge: Snow Hardness Measuring and Analysis Techniques
Abstract. The blade hardness gauge (BHG) is a promising technology for avalanche forecasters, technicians, and researchers. Designed and produced by Fraser Instruments Ltd., the BHG resembles and is based on the thin-blade tool introduced by Borstad and McClung in 2011. The BHG was designed to quantitatively measure snow hardness without the known biases of the hand hardness test. Research was carried out in the Canadian mountains of British Columbia and Alberta during the 2020–21 and 2021–22 winter seasons to test the reliability and integrity of the BHG. Side by side snow hardness profile comparison amongst avalanche practitioners shows that the BHG is more consistent for measuring snow hardness than the hand hardness test. A blade hardness to hand hardness comparative scale was developed to utilize the BHG as a teaching tool for the hand hardness test. This paper proposes refinements to standard data collection methods and techniques including the insertion rate and orientation of the thin-blade into the snowpack. These recommendations aim to increase consistency amongst users and highlight applications for avalanche practitioners to use in the field.
- Preprint
(682 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-759', Melin Walet, 12 Jun 2024
Please find the review in the attached document.
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Peter Barsevskis, 16 Jun 2024
Thank you for the general and specific comments. I will make sure to address your issues in the revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
Peter Barsevskis
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-759-CC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Peter Barsevskis, 16 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-759', Pascal Haegeli, 21 Jul 2024
OVERVIEW
Measuring the hardness of snow layers is a key tool for assessing avalanche conditions. Hand hardness is used broadly by avalanche safety practitioners, but the test results are susceptible to differences among testers, which puts serious limitations on how these measurements can be used. Hence, a more objective and repeatable way to measure snow hardness would be of great benefit to the community. The blade hardness gauge (BHG) initially introduced by Borstad and McClung (2011) is a practical instrument that can provide better snow hardness observations in a way that works for practitioners. However, an in-depth understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the BHG is required for promoting the broader use of the tool in the practitioner community and developing the necessary observation guidelines.
The present study by Barsevski and Paetkau contributes to the understanding of the BHG by examining how its measurements are affected by the insertion rate and orientation of the blade. The study also compares BHG observations to hand hardness test results and explores their repeatability.
While I completely understand the need and value for this work for the practitioner community, I have several concerns about the publication of this manuscript in NHESS.
CONCERNS
1) Limited difference to ISSW paper
The methods and results presented in the manuscript are basically the same as in the ISSW paper with only very few and superficial additions (e.g., Figure 2, Section 4.4, Table 3, L273-276). Most of the text is taken verbatim from the ISSW paper. The discussion is expanded, but the key take-home points are exactly the same as in the ISSW paper.
The main difference to the ISSW paper is the addition of Section 2, which provides a detailed 3-page overview of the history of snow hardness measurements. While interesting, the current text does not seem to contribute much to the main objective of the paper and seems way to long in relation to the rest of the paper.
In my opinion, the present manuscript is not sufficiently different enough from the ISSW to warrant publication in NHESS. Furthermore, given that the primary target audience for this study is practitioners and not the academic community, the ISSW proceedings seem to be the more suitable publication venue for this study anyway.
2) Research gap and contribution of study not well articulated
The current version of the manuscript includes a relatively brief and not well-organized introduction, which is followed by a long background section on snow hardness measurements and a brief objective section that outlines the specific research questions examined in this study. In my opinion, the authors currently do not do a very good job motivating their study, highlighting how they contribute to the existing research (Borstad & McClung, 2011; Pogue & McClung, 2016), and what practical insight their research will provide. The information presented in the first three sections should be combined into a concise and focused introduction that provides the reader with the necessary information to understand the research gap, the objective of the study and why it matters. Technical information about the type of the BHG used in the study belongs to the methods section and it not needed in the introduction.
3) Questions about methods
The methodological approach of the study and statistical analysis is relatively straight forward. However, I have several questions that would need to be addressed:
- Subjectively assessing the insertion rate in the experiments in the field seems questionable (even with prior training) if one wants to examine the effect of a) insertion rate or b) isolate the effect of orientation. For a scientific study, it would have been better to control the insertion rate more tightly.
- It would be interesting to know more about the characteristics of the snow layers that were examined in the study. Including grain type and/or size in the analyses of the effect of insertion rate and orientation could offer useful additional insights.
- I would like more information about the avalanche professions that contributed to the study, the contexts in which the measurements were taken, and how participants were instructed. This is important context information for understanding the results.
- The approach of using a series of two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests between adjacent hand hardness categories seems rather simple and ignores the hierarchical structure of the data (i.e., repeated measure by participant, snow layer, and snow profile). I have not thought this through sufficiently, but a mixed effects regression model with post-hoc tests might be more appropriate and could include additional predictors like grain type.
- Only requiring 3 BHG observations per participant for the two-sample tests examining the repeatability of observations seems very small!! A common rule of thumb is that a sample size of approx. 30 is required. Hence, the high degree of agreement might be an artefact of the small sample sizes, and I am not sure whether these results are truly meaningful.
4) Issues in discussion section
While longer than in the ISSW paper, the content of the discussion section is more or less the same, and I have several concerns:
- The additional information does compare the results of the present study to previous research, but the provided insights are limited. For example, there is no further discussion of what it means that Borstad and McClung did not find an effect of insertion rate.
- It would be useful to have a dedicated section discussing the implications of this study for the use of the BHG by practitioners (e.g., recommendations for standards and training).
- The conclusions are currently very brief and should be expanded. This is a chance to reiterate the research gap and the objective of the study, provide brief summaries of the methods and results, highlight the contribution of the study again. The conclusions should be its own section, and not a subsection of the discussion.
- A limitation section is currently missing. This is a crucial component of any scientific paper.
5) Presentation and writing style
Some of the writing is rather simple and too detailed on basic concepts not necessary for an academic article (e.g., L177: definition of velocity; L202: description of writing notes in “Rite on the Rain” notebook; L204: explanation of the data types). This level of detail can be useful in a thesis to highlight the candidate’s understanding but seems too basic for an article in an academic journal. Similarly, the figures illustrating the configuration of the BHG measurements (Fig. 2, 3, and 4) seem rather simple and not necessary.
Furthermore, the manuscript would benefit from following the traditional structure of an academic paper (Intro – Methods – Results – Discussion – Conclusion) more tightly. For example, it is not necessary to explain the analysis approach in the results section again (e.g., L221-22, L230-231) since it was already explained in the methods section. On the other side, one should not introduce new information about the methods in the result section. For example, the information that they conducted 11 trials for examining the consistency of the hardness measurement for the two insertion rates belongs into the methods section
Also, it is common practice to use past tense (not future tense; see L210) in the methods section since one is describing the approach of a study that has happened.
Overall, the manuscript would benefit from a more concise and academic writing style and some detailed editing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-759-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 155 | 45 | 24 | 224 | 16 | 17 |
- HTML: 155
- PDF: 45
- XML: 24
- Total: 224
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1