Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g4pgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T18:00:06.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Localized surface-ice weakness on a glacial ice runway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

R. M. Lang
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington 98447-0003, U.S.A.
George L. Blaisdell
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-1290, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following construction of a glacial ice runway on the Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica, and prior to flight operations, the runway was proof-rolled. The proof exercise was designed to simulate typical heavy aircraft. Initial testing produced numerous brittle surface failures in the runway ice. Thin sections of ice cores taken from the failed areas showed large crystals (с axis vertical) of clear, blue ice with long, vertical bubbles, indicative of ice formed directly from meltwater. Uniaxial unconfined compression tests on core samples were used to compare runway ice strength with published data for polycrystalline laboratory ice. Since the frequent failure of surface ice had not been expected, it was critical to understand the formation and mechanical properties of the weak ice to prevent its occurrence in the future and to strengthen the existing problem areas. We discuss the likely scenarios for development of weak ice on the airstrip and the physical properties of this type of ice. Also, the procedure used to repair successfully the runway surface is described, which culminated in test flights, followed by full flight operations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1996
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Proof cart configured to simulate the main landing gear of a C-141 aircraft.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Surface-ice temperature profile through time at the 1610 m marker on the Pegasus runway, austral summers 1992–93 and 1993–94.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Site of an ice failure caused during proof-rolling.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Core sample of weak Pegasus runway surface ice.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Sketch of the Pegasus runway showing the location of surface-ice failure areas.

Figure 5

Fig. 6a-c. Horizontal (left) and vertical thin sections of core sample removed from the Pegasus runway surface at the 1830 m zone: a. 0–5 cm; b. 5 –8 cm; c. 18–35.5 cm.

Figure 6

Fig. 6d-f. Horizontal (left) and vertical thin sections of core sample removed from the Pegasus runway surface at the 1830 m zone: a. 0–5 cm; b. 5 –8 cm; c. 18–35.5 cm.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Horizontal (top) and vertical thin sections of core sample removed from the Pegasus runway surface at the 3050 m zone (south end): a. 0–11.5 cm; b. 81–86.5 cm.

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Horizontal (top) and vertical thin sections at 10.3–20.5 cm horizon of core sample removed from the Pegasus runway surface at the 0 m zone (north end).

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Stress-strain curve from ice at a depth of 10.5–15.5 cm; extracted at the south end of the runway (3050 m). Applied loading rate was 44.5 kN s−1.

Figure 10

Fig. 10. Stress-strain curve from ice at a depth of 20–27 cm; extracted at the south end of the runway (3050 m). Applied loading rate was 44.5 kN s−1.

Figure 11

Fig. 11. Site of former melt pools on the ice shelf. They are easily identified by surface blisters that can frequently be very large and have distinct radial tension cracks.

Figure 12

Fig. 12. Cross-section of ice blister showing gap between upper meltwaler ice and lower glacial ice.

Figure 13

Fig. 13. Ratio of radiation intensity absorbed at depth x, (Qx) to intensity absorbed at snow surface (Qa) as a function of snowpack thickness and density.