Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bp2c4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T00:20:52.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Radar absorption, basal reflection, thickness and polarization measurements from the Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2017

Jordan C. Hanson*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Steven W. Barwick
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Eric C. Berg
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Dave Z. Besson
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA Moscow Physics and Engineering Institute, Moscow, Russia
Thorin J. Duffin
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Spencer R. Klein
Affiliation:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA
Stuart A. Kleinfelder
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
Corey Reed
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Mahshid Roumi
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Thorsten Stezelberger
Affiliation:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA
Joulien Tatar
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
James A. Walker
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Liang Zou
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
*
Jordan C. Hanson <918particle@gmail.com>
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Radio-glaciological parameters from the Moore’s Bay region of the Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica, have been measured. The thickness of the ice shelf in Moore’s Bay was measured from reflection times of radio-frequency pulses propagating vertically through the shelf and reflecting from the ocean, and is found to be 576 ± 8 m. Introducing a baseline of 543 ± 7m between radio transmitter and receiver allowed the computation of the basal reflection coefficient, R, separately from englacial loss. The depth-averaged attenuation length of the ice column, 〈L〉 is shown to depend linearly on frequency. The best fit (95% confidence level) is 〈L(ν)〉= (460±20) − (180±40)ν m (20 dB km−1), for the frequencies ν = [0.100–0.850] GHz, assuming no reflection loss. The mean electric-field reflection coefficient is (1.7 dB reflection loss) across [0.100–0.850] GHz, and is used to correct the attenuation length. Finally, the reflected power rotated into the orthogonal antenna polarization is <5% below 0.400 GHz, compatible with air propagation. The results imply that Moore’s Bay serves as an appropriate medium for the ARIANNA high-energy neutrino detector.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2015
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The site studied in this work is marked with the black circle. Moore’s Bay is the area south of Ross Island, enclosed by Minna Bluff. The satellite data alim ade available by the US Geological Survey (USGS, 2012). The main ice flowlines are illustrated with dashed lines. Fahnestock (2000) provides further analysis and discussion.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. The general set-up of the radio-sounding experiments. Measured and physical time delays are shown in Table 2.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. The vertical and angled bounce tests. The surface propagation set-up was used to derive the surface index of refraction, nsurf.

Figure 3

Table 1. The various experimental configurations used, by year, for the data in this work. S stands for Seavey horn, and L stands for LDPA (log-periodic dipole array)

Figure 4

Table 2. A summary of total and physical time delays for the various seasons, and calculated shelf thicknesses. The physical time delay Δtphys is the measured delay Δtmeas, with equipment delays subtracted. The total precision is quoted in the earlier measurements (Gerhardt and others, 2010; Barrella and others, 2011). The width of the reflected pulse, σpulse, is caused by the response of the antennas

Figure 5

Fig. 4. (a) The depth-averaged attenuation length vs frequency, with standard deviations from error propagation in Eqn (18). The attenuation length is converted to englacial loss (dB km−1), at right. (b) The data from (a) averaged into 75 MHz bins, with standard deviations. The linear fit has χ2/dof = 1.2, a slope of −180 ± 40 m GHz−1 and an offset of 460 ± 20 m. The dashed line is a fit to prior data taken 1 km from our site (Barrella and others, 2011).

Figure 6

Fig. 5. The electric-field reflection coefficient, , vs frequency. The three power spectra correspond to three measurements: a surface power calibration (black), vertical bounce (dark grey) and angled bounce (light grey) cases. The three measurements at each frequency determine a reflection coefficient through a linear fit to Eqn (13), with errors from Eqn (14) attributed to .

Figure 7

Fig. 6. Typical waveforms from 2011, averaged over 100 triggers. (a) The calibration pulse. (b) The vertical bounce reflection. (c) The angled bounce reflection. The vertical and angled bounce data have been amplified by the 60 dB Miteq amplifier. The data have been scaled to account for in-line attenuators (the data were kept within the amplifier linear range).

Figure 8

Table 3. Summary of dielectric parameters. The first column is the frequency, ν, followed by the attenuation lengths, which are uncorrected (〈L0〉) and corrected (〈L〉) for . The fourth column is 〈L〉 expressed in dB km−1. The imaginary part of the dielectric constant, ″ , is shown in the fifth column. The final column shows ν tan δ (GHz). The typical error on the quantity tan is 0.2 × 10−4

Figure 9

Table 4. A comparison of cross-polarization fraction measurements vs frequency