Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-r8qmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T10:56:51.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fracture field for large-scale ice dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Torsten Albrecht
Affiliation:
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany E-mail: torsten.albrecht@pik-potsdam.de Institute of Physics, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Anders Levermann
Affiliation:
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany E-mail: torsten.albrecht@pik-potsdam.de Institute of Physics, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent observations and modeling studies emphasize the crucial role of fracture mechanics for the stability of ice shelves and thereby the evolution of ice sheets. Here we introduce a macroscopic fracture-density field into a prognostic continuum ice-flow model and compute its evolution incorporating the initiation and growth of fractures as well as their advection with two dimensional ice flow. To a first approximation, fracture growth is assumed to depend on the spreading rate only, while fracture initiation is defined in terms of principal stresses. The inferred fracture-density fields compare well with observed elongate surface structures. Since crevasses and other deep-reaching fracture structures have been shown to influence the overall ice-shelf dynamics, we propose the fracture- density field introduced here be used as a measure for ice softening and decoupling of the ice flow in fracture-weakened zones. This may yield more accurate and realistic velocity patterns in prognostic simulations. Additionally, the memory of past fracture events links the calving front to the upstream dynamics. Thus the fracture-density field proposed here may be employed in fracture-based calving parameterizations. The aim of this study is to introduce the field and investigate which of the observed surface structures can be reproduced by the simplest physically motivated fracture source terms.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2012
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Observed fracture density, ϕobs, in the Filchner–Ronne Ice Shelf based on data of Hulbe and others (2010) and Eqn (2) with length-dependent width of the zone of influence, bounded by 1 km < w = l/4 < 10 km. Regions of vanishing fracture density are masked. Thin black and gray-dotted lines show the position of the grounding line and observed stream lines. (b) Close-up view of observed fracture density, ϕobs, overlaid by observed fractures (black) with associate zone of influence (gray contours). Main inlets and ice rises are denoted by abbreviations: R – Ronne Ice Shelf; F – Filchner Ice Shelf; EIS – Evans Ice Stream; CIS – Carlson Inlet; RIS – Rutford Ice Stream; IIS – Institute Ice Stream; MIS – M¨ oller Ice Stream; FIS – Foundation Ice Stream; SFIS – Support Force Ice Stream; REIS – Recovery Ice Stream; SIS – Slessor Ice Stream; FP – Foin Point; KIR – Korff Ice Rise; HIR – Henry Ice Rise; BIR – Berkner Ice Rise.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Steady-state fracture density, ϕ, for an ice shelf confined in a rectangular bay 300 km wide and 150 km long (left) or 150 km wide and 250 km long (right), with constant γ = 0.5. Ice flows into the bay at the top boundary with ϕ0 = 0.1, ice thickness 600m and maximal speed 300ma−1. Along the sides, friction is parameterized by a viscosity ηB = 5×1013 Pa s. At the ice-shelf front, ice calves off for an ice thickness less than 175 m. Melting and accumulation is neglected. Black dashed lines show lateral and cross sections along which profiles are plotted in Figure 3.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Obtained velocity, ice thickness, principal horizontal strain rates and the inferred fracture-density field evolution for ice shelves confined in a rectangular bay (a) 300 km wide and 150 km long and (b) 150 km wide and 250 km long (Fig. 2). Profiles are normalized to unity length and width and plotted in lateral view along the center line (left panel columns) and across the mouth of the bay (right panel columns). The black dashed vertical line in the left panel columns shows the position of the mouth of the bay. The gray dashed profile on the upper right panel shows the unidirectional inflow velocity applied at the upstream boundary. Steady-state values in the wide case are close to the analytical solution of an unbuttressed flowline ice shelf plotted as dashed curve, whereas in the narrow case profiles vary strongly. In the lower panels steady-state fracture densities with ϕ0 = 0.1 are shown.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Steady-state distribution of the fracture density in a realistic set-up of the FRIS for varying fracture initiation thresholds, σcr: (a) 0 kPa, (b, d) 70kPa and (c) 90kPa in von Mises fracture criterion with fracture growth parameter γ = 0.3, and without contribution through the inlets, ϕ0 = 0. Results shown in (d) are obtained by choosing a fracture growth rate with a constant For a fixed ice thickness, a flow enhancement of Essa = 0.4 and with parameterized side friction by ηB = 1015 Pa s, the fracture density is transported with a steady SSA velocity field. Overlaid, observed visible surface fractures, kindly provided by Hulbe and others (2010, Fig. 1).

Figure 4

Fig. 5. (a) Scatter plot showing a comparison of calculated vs observed surface speed values within the ice-shelf domain for an optimal parameter configuration of ESSA = 0.4 and ηB = 1015 Pa s. (b) Distribution of calculated von Mises effective stress, σt, in the FRIS. Values larger than critical effective stress, σcr = 70 kPa, colored in purple, are found in confined shear regions at the inlets and some side margins and where flow units merge. A maximum spreading rate of is obtained in most parts of the indicated regions (thick brown contours). Thin brown contours delineate lower spreading rate, i.e. 1.5 and 2.0 × 10−10 s−1.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Steady-state distribution of the fracture-density field for γ = 0.5, ϕ0 = 0andσcr = 70 kPa for a fixed geometry of the Larsen A+B ice shelf with a steady SSA velocity field. RI – Robertson Island; SNI – Seal Nunataks; CD – Cape Disappointment; CF – Cape Framnes; JP – Jason Peninsula; LG – Leppard Glacier; CG – Crane Glacier; JG – Jorum Glacier; FP – Foyn Point; EG – Evans Glacier; GG – Green Glacier; HG – Hektoria Glacier; DG – Drygalski Glacier; EBD – Edgeworth Bombareier and Dinsmoor Glaciers.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Steady-state fracture density for Filchner–Ronne simulation with (a) fracture density boundary condition for the inlets ϕ0 = 0.4 and (b) healing rate, γh = 0.1, and but with ϕ0 = 0. Parameters for fracture initiation are chosen as σcr = 70kPa and γ = 0.3 (cf. Fig. 4b).