Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T04:45:47.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Acoustic emission signatures prior to snow failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2018

ACHILLE CAPELLI*
Affiliation:
WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
INGRID REIWEGER
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering and Natural Hazards, Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
JÜRG SCHWEIZER
Affiliation:
WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
*
Correspondence: Achille Capelli <achille.capelli@slf.ch>
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Snow slab avalanches are caused by cracks forming and propagating in a weak snow layer below a cohesive slab. The gradual damage process leading to the formation of the initial failure within the weak layer (WL) is still not entirely understood. To this end, we designed a novel test apparatus that allows performing loading experiments with large snow samples (0.25 m2) including a WL at different loading rates and simultaneously monitoring the acoustic emissions (AE) response. By analyzing the AE generated by micro-cracking, we studied the evolution of the damage process preceding snow failure. At fast loading rates, the exponent of the AE energy distribution (b-value) gradually changed, and both the energy rate and the inverse waiting time increased exponentially with increasing load. These changes in AE signature indicate a transition from small to large events and an acceleration of the damage processes leading to brittle failure. For the experiments at slow loading rate, these changes in the AE signature were not or only partially present, even if the sample failed, indicating a different evolution of the damage process. The observed characteristics in AE response provide new insights on how to model snow failure as a critical phenomenon.

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) 2018
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the loading apparatus including a snow sample after fracture. The sample failed in the weak layer in the middle. The angle α to the sample simulates the slope angle and can be altered shifting the sample horizontally on the apparatus. The sliding weight exerts the force on the snow sample via the tilting mechanism (red line shows tilting axis) and the traction cable to the metal plate on top of the sample. A motor moves the weight increasing the distance x1, and hence the load exerted on the sample increases with $F \!\sim \! x_1/x_2$. The inset shows a schematic representation of the tilting mechanism with the exerted force.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of a snow sample with the metal plates and the six acoustic sensors (ch1 to ch6). The weak layer plane is parallel to the metal plates. The loading force is applied on the top plate with angle α from the vertical.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Exemplary AE signal to illustrate hit detection and feature extraction. The hit starts as the signal exceeds the threshold (red line) and ends when the signal is lower than the threshold for a time longer than the hit definition time (HDT). The waiting time is the distance between two consecutive hits.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Layered sample including a weak layer: schematically (left), thin section (right). The coarse depth hoar weak layer in the middle is well visible.

Figure 4

Table 1. Snow properties of top layer (slab), weak layer and bottom layer (base). We report the mean and the range, except for hand hardness index we provide the median, and for grain shape the most frequent shape.

Figure 5

Table 2. Summary of the test conditions and results for the 18 samples used for this study

Figure 6

Fig. 5. (a) Two-dimensional map of the total displacement relative to the bottom plate immediately before failure. The x- and y-axis show the dimension of the sample in mm. (b) Vertical and horizontal displacement at different heights. The scatterplot in blue shows the values for each evaluated point. The black lines indicate the mean at each height h. Sample LDL04B with loading angle α = 35°.

Figure 7

Fig. 6. (a) Stress–strain relation of weak layer for three experiments with different loading rates. The inset shows the stress for very low strain (below 0.0035). (b) Strain rate vs stress for the same three experiments. The solids lines in (a) and (b) were obtained from the noisy data with a Kalman filter; the dashed line in (b) is a linear fit of the strain rate. The loading angle was α = 35° for all three samples (LDL04B_load01, LDL12B and LDL07A).

Figure 8

Fig. 7. (a) Evolution of b-value toward failure for sample LDL07A, ch2. Running window size n = 250 hits. The error bars indicate the std dev. (b) Complementary cumulative distribution of energy E for eight different windows with corresponding power-law fits (dashed lines). The time t in the legend indicates the time before complete failure.

Figure 9

Fig. 8. (a) Energy rate evolution with increasing load for sample LDL07A (ch2; n = 100 hits). The red dashed line represents a linear fit of the logarithmically scaled energy rate, which increased exponentially before failure. (b) Evolution with increasing load of the inverse mean waiting time (IWT) for sample LDL07A (ch2) with running window size n = 100 hits.

Figure 10

Fig. 9. Evolution of b-value before complete failure for different loading rates (400, 168 and 32 Pa s−1). The dashed lines represent a linear regression. Samples shown: LDL07A, LDL12B and LDL04B_load02, window size n = 250.

Figure 11

Fig. 10. Boxplots summarizing the linear regression to the b-value time evolution of several samples for two different loading rates (168 Pa s−1, N = 18; 400 Pa s−1, N = 19). (a) The slope of the b-value evolution with time. (b) b-value at failure obtained from the intercept of the linear fit at the failure point.

Figure 12

Fig. 11. Evolution of the energy rate with increasing load for three different loading rates. Samples shown: LDL07A, LDL12B and LDL04B_load02, window size n = 100.

Figure 13

Fig. 12. Boxplots summarizing the temporal evolution of the energy rate for several samples and for two different loading rates (168 Pa s−1, N = 18; 400 Pa s−1, N = 19). (a) Exponential coefficient γσ. (b) Energy rate at failure (logarithmic scale) obtained from the intercept of the linear fit at the failure point.

Figure 14

Fig. 13. Evolution of the inverse waiting time with increasing load for different loading rates. Samples shown: LDL07A, LDL12B and LDL04B_load02, window size n = 100.

Figure 15

Fig. 14. AE features for the sample LDL04B (ch2), which was loaded with 32 Pa s−1 and did not fracture. Evolution with time for (a) b-value (running window size n = 300 hits, window separation 200 hits), (b) inverse waiting time (IWT) (n = 300 hits), (c) energy rate (n = 200 hits). The error bars indicate the std dev.

Figure 16

Fig. 15. Example of AE features in case of a local failure that did not lead to failure of the entire sample (LDL07B ch1; 168 Pa s−1). The local failure is marked by the red dashed vertical line at 28.2 s. The sample reached the maximum load of 20 kPa without failing. Evolution with time for (a) b-value (running window size n = 250 hits, window separation 100 hits), (b) inverse waiting time (IWT) (n = 300 hits), (c) energy rate (n = 100 hits). In the b-value evolution plot, the blue dots indicate that the power-law distribution provided the better fit than an exponential distribution; and vice versa for the red indicating that the exponential distribution yielded a better fit. The cases shown with open circles are those for which the goodness-of-fit was low and the model was not appropriate with 90% confidence (P-value >0.1). The error bars indicate the std dev.