2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2018.03.024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the decay of first-year ice ridges: Measurements and evolution of rubble macroporosity, ridge drilling resistance and consolidated layer strength

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…) but in good agreement with the values presented byErvik et al (2018). Present results showed variation of the sail macroporosity between 0 and 30% and values from less than 1% up to 51% in the case of keels.…”
supporting
confidence: 92%
“…) but in good agreement with the values presented byErvik et al (2018). Present results showed variation of the sail macroporosity between 0 and 30% and values from less than 1% up to 51% in the case of keels.…”
supporting
confidence: 92%
“…From literary sources it is known that averaged porosity of the unconsolidated portion of the keel can vary from 0.2 (Strub-Klein and Sudom 2012;Ervik et al 2018) to 0.3 (Beketsky and Truskov 1995;Høyland 2007), reaching in some cases up to 0.5 (Bonath et al 2018). As can be seen from the graphs in Figs.…”
Section: Kharitonov Ice Ridges In Landfast Ice Of Shokal'skogo Straitmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…coastal regions, because Hopkins (1998) and Amundrud et al (2004) pointed out that ridges in the central Arctic rarely reach the maximum thickness as the critical stresses do often not last long enough to complete the ridge building process. (Ervik et al, 2018;Høyland, 2007). If we assume that the fraction of 86 % of deformed ice in all observations had a porosity of 11-22 % the mean modeled thickness would increase by 0.1-0.3 m to 1.8-2 m.…”
Section: Magnitude Of Deformation Shapes Itdmentioning
confidence: 98%