the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Mohr–Coulomb yield curves for viscous-plastic sea ice models: flow rules and failure angles
Abstract. Viscous-plastic sea ice models typically overestimate the intersection angle between conjugate pairs of Linear Kinematic Features (LKFs) in uni-axial compression tests. These models employ an elliptical yield curve with a normal flow rule. Mohr-Coulomb yield curve formulations can use different plastic potentials (elliptical, teardrop, parabolic lens) implying different flow rule orientations along the limbs of the Mohr-Coulomb yield envelope. The flow rule affects not only the LKFs intersection angle, but also the numerical convergence of the model and the approach to transitions between viscous and plastic states. Some of the proposed Mohr-Coulomb yield curves results in failure angles in the observations 15–30 degree range, which is generally smaller than the ones obtained with the elliptical yield curve with a normal flow rule. The simulated failure angles are best described by Arthur's theory, where both shape of the yield curve and plastic potential influence the orientation of the failure lines. These new Mohr-Coulomb formulations, in particular the Mohr-Coulomb yield curve with elliptical plastic potential with wide ellipse (e < 2) or the Mohr-Coulomb yield curve with the teardrop plastic potential, provide interesting alternatives to the elliptical yield curve for the modeling of LKFs in high-resolution sea ice models, at the cost of a less efficient numerical convergence.
- Preprint
(1502 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 Sep 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1845', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jul 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1845/egusphere-2026-1845-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-1845-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1845', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Aug 2026
reply
The authors present an analysis of fracture in sea ice models using a Mohr-Coulomb rheology, varying the formulation of the yield curve. As sea ice models still struggle to reproduce observed characteristics of sea ice deformation, it is valuable to the sea ice community understand strengths and limitations of model formulations. The topic is timely and relevant, as there are multiple groups working on alternative sea ice model formulations, and is within the scope of The Cryosphere. Indeed, this paper is a logical follow-on to the lead author’s prior work, also published in The Cryosphere, in which the observational dataset for sea ice fracture angles was developed. The introduction includes clear justification for probing the choice of rheology and lays out the theory in a concise and clear way. The results document challenges for sea ice model convergence that depend on the choice of yield curves, and the authors offer suggestions for improving model convergence. The analysis is likely to provide high value for the sea ice modeling community and thus I recommend publication after minor revisions.
Minor comments
While the experimental setup is shown, and derivations from the results are plotted, the authors do not show the numerical results from which the angles were derived. Including such a visualization would improve confidence in methodology and the simulation results.
How were the confidence intervals for the failure angles in (e.g.) Fig. 5 determined? Do these error bars represent multiple fractures within one simulation, or single fracture instances across an ensemble of simulations?
The experiments show the failure angles from uniaxial compression, while the observations show the emergent distribution of fractures across a wide range of conditions. In what way do the boundary conditions influence the angle distribution?
Line-by-line comments
Line 87 define -> defined
Line 239 Unnecessary capitalization of “We”
Line 241 Extra parenthesis
Line 290 Should this be “rationales” instead of “rationals”? If not, please clarify the sentence
Line 292 The alignment with Arthur’s angle was also noted in the lead author’s prior work – in the corrigendum to Ringeisen et al. 2021. I think this consistency is notable and should be included in the discussion.
Line 339 “it is still an interesting alternative” – please clarify, it’s not clear what “it” is referring to here.
Line 346 “we are giving” -> “we give”Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1845-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1845', Anonymous Referee #3, 19 Aug 2026
reply
Review given in the attached PDF file.
Model code and software
MITgcm: checkpoint67z J.-M. Campin et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4968496
MITgcm: Mohr-Coulomb rheologies D. Ringeisen et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19361862
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 277 | 94 | 27 | 398 | 26 | 21 |
- HTML: 277
- PDF: 94
- XML: 27
- Total: 398
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1