Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T13:50:18.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Classification and kinematics of the Planpincieux Glacier break-offs using photographic time-lapse analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2020

Daniele Giordan
Affiliation:
Geohazard Monitoring Group, Research Institute for Geo-Hydrological Protection, National Research Council of Italy, Torino, Italy
Niccolò Dematteis*
Affiliation:
Geohazard Monitoring Group, Research Institute for Geo-Hydrological Protection, National Research Council of Italy, Torino, Italy
Paolo Allasia
Affiliation:
Geohazard Monitoring Group, Research Institute for Geo-Hydrological Protection, National Research Council of Italy, Torino, Italy
Elena Motta
Affiliation:
Safe Mountain Foundation, Courmayeur, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Niccolò Dematteis, E-mail: niccolo.dematteis@irpi.cnr.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herein, we present results obtained from time-lapse imagery acquired by a digital single-lens reflex camera during 2014–18 used to monitor the Planpincieux Glacier on the Italian side of the Grandes Jorasses (Mont Blanc massif). We processed the images using image cross-correlation to measure the surface kinematics of the most active lobe of the glacier that presents a high velocity and frequent ice detachments. During the monitoring, we observed two or three periods of sharp acceleration per year that culminated with large break-offs followed by analogous decelerations. Overall, we registered more than 350 failures with a volume >100 m3, of which, 14 events had volumes larger than 10 000 m3. The study identified a monotonic positive relationship between the velocity and failure volume that may be used to estimate the volume of the collapses before an event. We identified the thresholds of velocity and acceleration that characterise the activation of the speed-up periods. The study allowed the characterisation of three different instability processes that lead to the break-off of ice chunks from the glacier terminus: (i) disaggregation, (ii) slab fracture and (iii) water tunnelling failure which can be differentiated based on the rheology, the volume involved and the trigger process.

Information

Type
Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020
Figure 0

Fig. 1. A general overview of the Ferret Valley in the Mont Blanc massif area. The black outlines are the Planpincieux (a), Toula (b) and Petit Grapillon (c) Glaciers. The red triangle indicates the location of the monitoring station in front of the Planpincieux Glacier. The green square is the position of the Ferrachet automatic weather station. In the upper left box, a 3-D view of the Ferret Valley is shown (Spot image of 14 July 2015 from Google Earth).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Study area. The upper figure shows the right side of the Ferret valley. The limits of the Planpincieux Glacier are depicted in yellow. The dashed yellow line indicates the margin between the lower right and left lobes of the glacier. The Montitaz stream (blue line) flows from the right lobe. The buildings of the Planpincieux hamlet are marked in white outlines. The black rectangle delimits the area observed by the TELE module. The lower figure shows a panoramic picture of the Grandes Jorasses massif acquired from the monitoring station.

Figure 2

Table 1. Historical records of the break-off events occurring in the Planpincieux Glacier (Report of the forest rangers of the Pré Saint Didier station of 20/02/1982, 1982; Gianbastiani, 1983; Ceriani and others, 2010)

Figure 3

Table 2. Total number of images acquired by the monitoring station in each year and number of images processed using image cross-correlation (ICC). The fourth column reports the number of days without images suitable processing using ICC

Figure 4

Table 3. Survey campaigns and datasets collected during the monitoring period

Figure 5

Fig. 3. (a) Positive degree day at the elevation of the glacier. (b) Hourly and cumulative rainfall. (c) Snow deposition. Precipitation and snow were recorded by the Ferrachet atmospheric weather station.

Figure 6

Fig. 4. Volume estimate of the break-off occurring on 9 June 2014. (a) Image of the glacier before the break-off. (b) Orthorectified nadiral photo before the failure. (c) Detail of figure (a), where the manual decomposition of the volume in irregular polyhedra is shown. The solid lines indicate the frontal edges, while the dashed lines indicate the rear (inner) edges. (d) Image of the glacier after the break-off. (e) Detail of figure (b), where the margins of the collapsed ice are depicted in yellow.

Figure 7

Fig. 5. The lower panels show the evolution of the position of the glacial front at the end of the warm seasons during 2014–18. The coloured lines indicate the position in each year: 2014 (cyan), 2015 (green), 2016 (yellow), 2017 (orange) and 2018 (red). The front width is ~100 m. The black dashed line indicates the large recurrent crevasse that opens each year during the warm season. The upper panels show the velocity in cm  d−1 from July to September. On the left, the limits of the kinematic domains are approximately illustrated and projected on the maps with dashed black lines.

Figure 8

Fig. 6. Morphodynamical scheme of the glacier. (a) Image of the glacier lobe. (b) Example map of the surface velocity. (c) Longitudinal section of the glacier (not to scale). (d) GPR profile. The limits of the kinematic domains are represented by coloured bars. The black dashed lines indicate the position of the crevasse that opens each year at the same position. The bedrock discontinuities are highlighted with black solid lines and are easily recognisable in the GPR profile. Vb, Vs are the basal and surface velocities, respectively.

Figure 9

Fig. 7. Instability processes. Panel (a) On the left, the disaggregation detachment scheme is shown. On the right, images of the pre- and post-event are shown. Panel (b) On the left, the slab break-off scheme is shown. On the right, images of the pre- and post-event are shown. Panel (c) On the left, the water tunnelling scheme of the break-off is shown. The light-blue line indicates englacial water. On the right, the pre- and post-event images are shown. The yellow lines delimit the collapsed volume before (left photo) and after (right photo) the break-off events. The front width is ~100 m.

Figure 10

Fig. 8. (a) Boxplot of the break-off volume caused by different processes. The number of disaggregation, slab fractures and water tunnelling events is 151, 13 and 9, respectively. (b) Total amount of collapsed volume. (c) Number of break-off events.

Figure 11

Fig. 9. Time series of the daily velocity of sectors A and B during 2014–18. The collapse events are displayed as coloured dots according to the instability process: disaggregation events are black, slab fractures are red and water tunnelling failures are cyan. The dimension of the black circles is proportional to the volume of the break-off. The grey rectangles indicate the active phases that culminate with slab-induced failures. The red rectangles indicate potential active phases whose evolution was probably interrupted by temperature decreases and snowfalls; these accelerations culminated with disaggregation events.

Figure 12

Table 4. Maximum velocity, cumulative volume of collapsed ice and number of events of the different processes in each year

Figure 13

Fig. 10. Active phases of the 10 d before slab fractures collapses (a, c, e, f, g, i). Active phases of the 10 d before disaggregation collapses (b, d, h). The circles represent the observed velocity, the solid lines are the power-law fit and the dotted lines are the linear fit of the previous 5 d of the active phases.

Figure 14

Table 5. The table reports the dates of the break-offs during the active phases. The dates with asterisks refer to disaggregation type failures. The coefficient of determination (R2) and RMSE were computed for the power-law fit of Eqn (3) using the 10 d before the break-off. The p-value was computed against the null-hypothesis of the linear fit

Figure 15

Fig. 11. (a) Spearman correlation coefficient between the velocity and volume obtained with bootstrap (bst) and Monte Carlo (MC) analyses. (b) p-value of the spearman correlation for the Monte Carlo analysis. (c) Relationship between the velocity and break-off volume.

Figure 16

Table 6. Dates of potential active phases and volume of the relative break-off. α is the angular coefficient (i.e., the acceleration) of the linear fit of 5 consecutive days and v0 is the velocity at the first day of each potential active phase. The rows in italic refer to a disaggregation detachment. The date with asterisks indicates events that did not culminate in a break-off