<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">TC</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>The Cryosphere</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">TC</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">The Cryosphere</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1994-0424</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/tc-13-1167-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Simulating intersection angles between conjugate faults in sea ice with different viscous–plastic rheologies</article-title><alt-title>Modeling sea ice fracture at high-resolution with VP rheologies</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Modeling sea ice fracture at high-resolution with VP rheologies}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{D. Ringeisen et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ringeisen</surname><given-names>Damien</given-names></name>
          <email>damien.ringeisen@awi.de</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8436-6928</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Losch</surname><given-names>Martin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3824-5244</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Tremblay</surname><given-names>L. Bruno</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Hutter</surname><given-names>Nils</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3450-9422</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar und Meeresforschung (AWI), Bremerhaven, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Damien Ringeisen (damien.ringeisen@awi.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>9</day><month>April</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>1167</fpage><lpage>1186</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>2</day><month>September</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>20</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>20</day><month>March</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>March</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Damien Ringeisen et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019.html">This article is available from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e113">Recent high-resolution pan-Arctic sea ice simulations show
fracture patterns (linear kinematic features or LKFs) that are typical of
granular materials but with wider fracture angles than those observed in
high-resolution satellite images. Motivated by this, ice fracture is
investigated in a simple uni-axial loading test using two different
viscous–plastic (VP) rheologies: one with an elliptical yield curve and a
normal flow rule and one with a Coulombic yield curve and a normal flow rule
that applies only to the elliptical cap. With the standard VP rheology, it is
not possible to simulate fracture angles smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Further,
the standard VP model is not consistent with the behavior of granular
material such as sea ice because (1) the fracture angle increases with ice
shear strength; (2) the divergence along the fracture lines (or LKFs) is
uniquely defined by the shear strength of the material with divergence for
high shear strength and convergent with low shear strength; (3) the angle of
fracture depends on the confining pressure with more convergence as the
confining pressure increases. This behavior of the VP model is connected to
the convexity of the yield curve together with use of a normal flow rule. In
the Coulombic model, the angle of fracture is smaller (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and grossly consistent with observations. The solution, however, is unstable
when the compressive stress is too large because of non-differentiable
corners between the straight limbs of the Coulombic yield curve and the
elliptical cap. The results suggest that, although at first sight the large-scale patterns of LKFs simulated with a VP sea ice model appear to be
realistic, the elliptical yield curve with a normal flow rule is not
consistent with the notion of sea ice as a pressure-sensitive and dilatant
granular material.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e153">Sea ice is a granular material, that is, a material that is composed of ice
floes of different sizes and shapes
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx46" id="paren.1"/>. In most large-scale
models, sea ice is treated as a viscous–plastic continuum. It deforms
plastically when the internal stress becomes critical in compression, shear,
or tension; it deforms as a very viscous (creep) flow when the internal
stress is relatively small <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22 bib1.bibx75 bib1.bibx28" id="paren.2"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. The corresponding
highly nonlinear sea ice momentum equations can be solved with modern
numerical solvers to reproduce, in a qualitative way, observed linear
patterns of sea ice deformation within reasonable computing time
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29 bib1.bibx37 bib1.bibx40 bib1.bibx32" id="paren.3"/>.
These linear kinematic features (LKFs) are places of large shear and
divergence <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35" id="paren.4"/>. Leads that open along LKFs are
responsible for an emergent anisotropy of such models, affecting the
subsequent dynamics, mass balance, and the heat and matter exchanges between
the ocean, ice, and atmosphere. It is therefore important to investigate
whether sea ice fracture is represented accurately in continuum sea ice
models.</p>
      <p id="d1e170">The sea ice dynamics are complicated because of sharp spatial changes in
material properties associated with discontinuities (e.g., along sea ice leads
or ridges) and heterogeneity (spatially varying ice thickness and
concentration). The sea ice momentum equations are difficult to solve
numerically because of the nonlinear sea ice rheology. Since the first sea
ice dynamics model, the elastic–plastic sea ice model based on data collected
during the Arctic Ice Dynamics Joint Experiment
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="paren.5"><named-content content-type="pre">AIDJEX;</named-content></xref>, several approaches to modeling sea ice
have been<?pagebreak page1168?> developed. Sea ice has been modeled as an incompressible fluid
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="paren.6"/>, a viscous–plastic (VP) material
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.7"/>, an elastic–viscous–plastic (EVP) material
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="paren.8"/>, a granular material
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx61" id="paren.9"/>, an elastic anisotropic plastic (EAP) medium
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx70" id="paren.10"/>, an elastic–decohesive medium
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54" id="paren.11"/>, an elasto–brittle (EB) material
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50" id="paren.12"/>, and a Maxwell(viscous)–elastic–brittle (MEB)
material <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="paren.13"/>. The actual number of approaches to
sea ice modeling in the community, however, is much smaller. For example, 30
out of 33 global climate models in CMIP5 use some form of the standard VP
rheology <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.14"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e206">In spite of its success, the standard VP rheology is not undisputed.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7" id="text.15"/> critically reviewed the assumptions behind current
modeling practice since the original model of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="text.16"/>,
namely the zero tensile strength (ice is a highly fractured material) and
isotropy assumptions of the sea ice cover and the rheological model.
Originally, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="text.17"/> assumed sea ice to have cracks in all
directions, justifying isotropic ice properties and isotropic rheologies. The
use of continuum models such as the standard VP model for high-resolution
simulations (grid spacings of 1–10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is also debated since the
grid size approaches a typical floe size and clearly violates the continuum
assumption. For instance, recent high-resolution simulations using the VP
model used spatial resolution of approximately 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a regional
domain <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx67" id="paren.18"/> and 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a pan-Arctic domain
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="paren.19"/>. It can be argued that if the mode of deformation
of a single floe is similar to that of an aggregate of floes, a given
rheology developed for a continuum can still be applicable at spatial
resolutions of the order of the floe size <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46 bib1.bibx16" id="paren.20"><named-content content-type="post">Appendix C</named-content></xref>, but the validity of a given flow
rule across scales is not clear. At any scale, the assumption of viscous
creep for small deformations is not physical, and an elastic model would be
appropriate for low stress states. The long viscous timescale, compared to
the synoptic timescale of LKFs, of order 30 years
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.21"/>, however, allows viscous deformation to be viewed
as a small numerical regularization with few implications for the
dissipation of mechanical energy from the wind or ocean current
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.22"/>, and the ice model can be considered an ideal
plastic material. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx62" id="text.23"/> included anisotropy explicitly
in a VP model and show that it improved the representation of ice thickness
and ice drift compared to an EVP model. Alternative VP rheologies were never
widely used in the community. These include a Coulombic yield curve with a
normal flow rule <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.24"/>, a parabolic lens and a
tear drop <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48" id="paren.25"/>, a diamond-shaped yield curve
with normal flow rules <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx76" id="paren.26"/>, a Mohr–Coulomb yield curve
with a double-sliding deformation law <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx61" id="paren.27"/>, or a
curved diamond <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx66" id="paren.28"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e279">Previously, fracture lines (LKFs) in the pack ice were explained by brittle
fracture <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41" id="paren.29"/>. Similar fracture patterns were also
observed, from the centimeter scale in the lab to hundreds of kilometers in
satellite observations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx55 bib1.bibx69" id="paren.30"/>. The
scale invariance of the fracture processes at the floe scale has not been
shown. This may come from a lack of observations at both high spatial and
temporal resolution. Based on satellite observations (e.g., RADARSAT
Geophysical Processor System, RPGS, or Advanced Very-High-Resolution
Radiometer, AVHRR) and in situ internal ice stress measurements (e.g., from
the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean, SHEBA, experiment),
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx69" id="text.31"/> proposed to model winter sea ice as a material that
undergoes brittle failure with subsequent inelastic deformation by sliding
along LKFs. This idea was formalized with an additional parameterization to
simulate damage associated with brittle fracture in an elasto–brittle (EB)
and Maxwell–elasto–brittle (MEB) model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18 bib1.bibx50 bib1.bibx10" id="paren.32"/>. We note that subsequent
deformation in this model is considered to be elastic deformation (EB) or
visco–elastic deformation (MEB) instead of plastic. That is, in the EB and
MEB approaches, the material does not weaken when fracture occurs, but rather
the Young's modulus is reduced, leading to larger elastic deformation for
the same stress. From the scaling behavior of simulated sea ice deformation
fields of EVP models (with 12 km grid spacing), it was found that the
heterogeneity and the intermittency of deformation in the VP model are not
consistent with Radarsat Geophysical Processor System (RGPS) data <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="paren.33"/>. In contrast,
VP models were shown to be indeed capable of simulating the probability density
functions (PDFs) of sea ice
deformations and some of the scaling characteristics over the whole Arctic in
agreement with the same observations, either with sufficient resolution
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx57 bib1.bibx32" id="paren.34"/> or with tuned shear and
compressive strength parameters <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="paren.35"/>.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1169?><p id="d1e305">High-resolution sea ice models simulate LKF patterns in pack ice, where they
appear as lines of high deformation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30 bib1.bibx32" id="paren.36"/>. Previously fractured ice will be weaker and will affect
future sea ice deformation fields. The weakening associated with shear
deformation results from divergence and a reduction in ice concentration
along the LKFs. This mechanism introduces an anisotropy in high-resolution
simulations that is similar to observations with comparable spatial
resolution. Lead characteristics, including intersection angles between LKFs,
were studied a number of times <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38 bib1.bibx30 bib1.bibx73 bib1.bibx6 bib1.bibx68 bib1.bibx33" id="paren.37"/>. These studies show that VP models produce
LKFs with various confinements, scales, resolutions, and forcings. From
observations with different instruments (Landsat, Seasat/SAR, areal
photographs, AVHRR), typical fracture angles between intersecting LKFs of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emerge at scales from 1 to 100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<?xmltex \hack{\mbox\bgroup}?><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="altparen.38"/><?xmltex \hack{\egroup}?>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx65" id="altparen.39"/>). <?xmltex \hack{\mbox\bgroup}?><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="text.40"/><?xmltex \hack{\egroup}?> present an
LKF tracking algorithm and show that fracture angles (half of the
intersection angles) between LKFs in RGPS data follow a broad distribution
that peaks around 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, in line with previous assessments
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx65" id="paren.41"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="text.42"/> also show
that the distribution of fracture angles in a VP simulation with 2 km
grid spacing is biased, with a high modal value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and with too
few small intersection angles between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The observed
bias motivates the present investigation of the dependence of fracture angles
in different VP rheologies and model settings, that is, scale, resolution,
boundary conditions, model geometry, and variability in initial ice thickness
field.</p>
      <p id="d1e405">The simulation of fractures in sea ice models has been studied in idealized
model geometries before. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.43"/> investigated the effect
of embedded flaws – that favor certain angles of fractures – in idealized
experiments using a Coulombic yield curve. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="text.44"/>
showed that LKFs can be simulated with an isotropic VP model using an
idealized model geometry. The shape of the elliptical yield curve (ratio of
shear to compressive strength) in the standard VP model determines if ice
arches can form in an idealized channel experiment
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25 bib1.bibx14" id="paren.45"/>.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.46"/> investigated the yield curve's
mathematical characteristics and derived angles between the principal stress
directions and characteristics directions that depend on the tangent to the
yield curve. These results show that stress states exist in plastic materials
where no LKFs form and were later used to build a yield curve
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx66" id="paren.47"/>. To build an anisotropic rheology,
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx73" id="text.48"/> used a discrete element model (DEM) in
an idealized model domain and showed clear diamond-shaped fracture patterns.
Idealized experiments are also used to investigate new rheologies, for
example, the Maxwell–elastic–brittle (MEB) rheology
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="paren.49"/> or the material-point method (MPM)
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx60" id="paren.50"/>, or to study the theoretical framework explaining
the fracture angles <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.51"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content><named-content content-type="post">with a Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion in an
MEB model</named-content></xref>. Recently, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.52"/>
compared simulated fractures by the EVP and EAP models using an idealized
model geometry and wind forcing and showed that the anisotropic model
creates sharper deformation features. To the best of our knowledge, the
dependency of the fracture angles in sea ice on the shape of the yield curve
using high-resolution models has not yet been investigated. This is another
motivation of this study.</p>
      <p id="d1e443">In this paper, we simulate the creation of a pair of conjugate faults in an
ice floe with two different VP rheologies in an idealized experiment at a
spatial resolution of 25 m. We explore the influence of various parameters
of the rheologies and the model geometry (scale, resolution, confinement,
boundary conditions, and heterogeneous initial conditions). The remainder of
this paper is structured as follows. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/> presents the
experimental setup: the VP framework (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/>), the definition of
the yield curve (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2"/>), and the description of the idealized
experiment (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS3"/>). Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/> presents the
results: first the control simulation is presented
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1"/>), then we explore the sensitivity of
the setup in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2"/> to scale,
resolution and longer run time (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1"/>), modified
boundary conditions and lateral confinement
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2"/>), and to heterogeneity in
initial conditions (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS3"/>). Finally, we
consider the effects of two different yield curves with different flow rules
in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS3"/>: the elliptical
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1"/>) and the Coulombic yield curve
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2"/>). Discussion and conclusions follow in
Sects. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/> and <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Experimental setup</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Viscous–plastic model</title>
      <p id="d1e493">We use the Massachusetts Institute of Technology general circulation model
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="paren.53"><named-content content-type="pre">MITgcm;</named-content></xref> with its sea ice package that
allows for the use of different rheologies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="paren.54"/>.
All thermodynamic processes have been turned off for our experiments. The
initial sea ice conditions, mean (grid cell averaged) thickness <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
fractional sea ice cover <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, are advected by ice drift velocities with a
third-order flux limiter advection scheme <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="paren.55"/>.
Ice drift is computed from the sea ice momentum equations
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M14" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ice density, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the grid cell averaged sea ice
thickness, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the velocity field, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the Coriolis parameter,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the vertical unit vector, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
surface air stress, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ocean drag,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the gradient of sea surface height, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the vertically integrated internal ice stress
tensor. The form of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> defines the rheology. In the case
of the standard VP model described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="text.56"/>, the
components of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are defined as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M26" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the Kronecker delta, and summation over equal indices
is implied. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are the shear and bulk viscosities,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the strain rate tensor defined as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M31" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum compressive stress defined as a function of the ice
strength parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, mean sea ice thickness <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the sea ice
concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M36" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a free parameter.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1170?><p id="d1e992">The stress tensor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is often expressed in terms of
principal stresses <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or stress invariants
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The principal stresses
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the principal components or eigenvalues of the
stress tensor on a sea ice element. Eigenvalues always exist because the
stress tensor is by definition symmetric. The principal stresses <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be expressed as a function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M48" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>5</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>6</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            This change of coordinates can then be represented as a rotation of the
coordinates by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F13"/>). This angle is
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx61" id="paren.57"/>
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M50" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e1310">Any linear combination of the principal stresses consists of stress invariants. One
common set of stress invariants is the mean normal stress (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and the maximal shear stress (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). They can be written as

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M53" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E8"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>8</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E9"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>9</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Yield curve</title>
      <p id="d1e1494">The VP rheology was originally developed to simulate ice motion on a basin
scale (e.g., Arctic Ocean, Southern Ocean) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.58"/>. In
this model, stochastic elastic deformation is parameterized as highly viscous
(creep) flow <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="paren.59"/>. Ice is set in motion by surface air
and basal ocean stresses moderated by internal ice stress. When the internal
sea ice stress reaches a critical value in compression, tension, or shear, sea
ice fails and relatively large plastic deformation takes place. Internal ice
stress below these thresholds leads to highly viscous (creep) flow that
parameterizes the bulk effect of many small reversible elastic deformation
events. The timescale of viscous deformation is so high
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≃</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> years) that viscous deformation can be seen as
regularization for better numerical convergence in the case of small
deformation. Plastic deformations are relatively large and irreversible.
Viscous deformations are negligibly small; in contrast to elastic
deformation, they are also irreversible. The yield criterion is expressed as
a 2-D envelope either in principal stress space or stress invariant space with
a normal flow rule. The constitutive equations (Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) are derived
assuming that the principal axes of stress coincide with the principal axes
of strain. The stress state on the yield curve together with the normal flow
rule therefore determines the relative importance of divergence (positive or
negative) and shear strain rate at a point. The magnitude of the deformation
is such that the stress state remains on the yield cure during plastic
deformation.</p>
      <p id="d1e1515">In this study, we use two different yield curves: an elliptical yield curve
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.60"/> and a Coulombic yield curve
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.61"/>. The elliptical yield curve is used in
conjunction with a normal flow rule, while the Coulombic yield curve uses a
normal flow rule on the elliptical cap and a flow rule normal to the
truncated ellipse for the same first principal stress
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.62"><named-content content-type="post">Appendix A</named-content></xref>. For the elliptical yield curve
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>, black line), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are given by

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M57" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E10"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>10</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E11"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>11</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            with the abbreviation

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E12" content-type="numbered"><label>12</label><mml:math id="M58" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msubsup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          In this abbreviation, the strain rate invariants are the divergence
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the maximum
shear strain rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
ellipse aspect ratio with the semi-major half-axes <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (shown in blue
in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>). The ellipse aspect ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> defines the shear
strength <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the material as a fraction of its
compressive strength <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="paren.63"/>. For the Coulombic yield
curve (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>, red curve), the shear viscosity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is capped on
the two straight limbs:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E13" content-type="numbered"><label>13</label><mml:math id="M67" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo movablelimits="false">min⁡</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="}" open="{"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the slope of the Mohr–Coulomb limbs (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
is the cohesion value (the value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) defined
relative to the tensile strength by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
defined as a fraction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1972">Elliptical yield curve (black) with ellipse aspect ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Coulombic yield curve (red) and elliptical capping with internal angle of
friction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are measures of the shear strength of
the material. The normal flow rule applies only to the elliptical part of the
yield curves. For the two straight limbs of the Coulombic yield curve, the
flow is normal to the truncated ellipse (dashed-dotted line) with the same first
stress invariant. Note that the axes <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> do not have the same scale.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=142.26378pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2068">The theoretical angle of fracture <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be calculated from the Mohr's
circle of stress and yield curve written in the local (reference) coordinate
system <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34 bib1.bibx49 bib1.bibx24" id="paren.64"/>. Details are described in Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S2"/>. For a Mohr–Coulomb yield
criterion, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> follows immediately from the internal angle of friction
or the material shear strength. An instructive analogue is the slope of a
pile of sand on a table. Moist sand has a higher shear strength, and hence the
slope angle can be steeper (i.e., the angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is smaller).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Idealized experiment</title>
      <?pagebreak page1171?><p id="d1e2105">An idealized compressive test is used to investigate the modes of sea ice
fracture (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>). This experiment is standard in
engineering <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx55 bib1.bibx69" id="paren.65"/>. The numerical
configuration is inspired by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="text.66"/> and similar
to the one shown in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="text.67"/>. All experiments presented
below use the same setup unless specified otherwise. The values of
parameters and constants are presented in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e2123">Model domain with a solid wall on the southern (red) boundary
(Dirichlet boundary conditions with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and prescribed southward
velocities on the northern orange boundary (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E15"/>) and open boundaries to the east and the
west (green) with von Neumann boundary conditions. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the measured
fracture angle with the blue line representing an LKF.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=142.26378pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e2194">Model parameters of the reference simulation.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.93}[.93]?><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Symbol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Definition</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Value</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Unit</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Density of ice</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">910</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Ice strength</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">27.5</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kN</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Strength reduction parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Maximum viscosity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Grid spacing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Water drag coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.21</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Size of the domain</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Size of experiment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Ice floe's size</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Initial ice concentration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">%</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Initial ice thickness</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lin</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">No. linear iteration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nlin</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">No. nonlinear iteration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">err</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Max. error in LSR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Time step</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Ellipse ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Initial velocity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Acceleration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2903">The model domain is a rectangle of size <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
except for the experiments presented in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1"/>
and <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2"/>. An ice floe of
size <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, surrounded by 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of open
water on the eastern and western sides, is compressed with a linearly (in
time) increasing strain rate from the north against a solid southern
boundary. The eastern and western strips of open water avoid interesting
dynamics being confounded by the choice of lateral boundary conditions along
the open boundaries. We use a no-slip condition for the southern boundary,
constraining lateral ice motion. Note that the results presented below are
not sensitive to the choice of boundary condition on the eastern and western
boundaries. Because the simulation time and the ice velocities are small, the
Coriolis force in the momentum equations are neglected. Ocean and sea ice are
initially at rest. The only term left in the momentum equation
(Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) that is relevant for our experiment is the stress
divergence term, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The ice floe has a uniform
concentration of 100 % and a thickness of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The spatial resolution
of the model is 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The angle of fracture is measured with the
angle measuring tool of the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP,
<uri>https://www.gimp.org/</uri>, Version 2.8.22, last access: 4 April 2019). All angles measured in this study have an error
of approximately <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The finite size of the grid spacing
widens the deformation line, and the fracture spreads over several pixels
because of the obliquity of the fracture. Automatic algorithms for measuring
LKF intersection angles are described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39" id="text.68"/> and
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="text.69"/>.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1172?><p id="d1e3011">We solve the nonlinear sea ice momentum equations with a Picard or fixed
point iteration with 1500 nonlinear or outer-loop iterations. Within each
nonlinear iteration, the nonlinear coefficients (drag coefficients and
viscosities) are updated and a linearized system of equations is solved with
a line successive (over-)relaxation (LSR) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx75" id="paren.70"/>. The
linear iteration is stopped when the maximum norm of the updates is less than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LSR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, but we also limit the
number iterations to 1500. Typically, 1500 nonlinear iterations are required
to reach a state close enough to the converged solution. Note that this
criterion is much stricter than that proposed by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx36" id="text.71"/> – this is so because of slow convergence due
to the highly nonlinear rheology term and the high spatial resolution.</p>
      <p id="d1e3053">On the open eastern and western boundaries, we use von Neumann boundary
conditions for velocity, thickness and concentration, and ice can escape the
domain without any restrictions:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E14" content-type="numbered"><label>14</label><mml:math id="M140" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="" close="|"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>u</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">E</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">W</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="|" open=""><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">E</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">W</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="|" open=""><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">E</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">W</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="" close="|"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">E</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">W</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where E and W denote the eastern and western boundaries, respectively.
Strain is applied to the ice at the northern boundary by prescribing a
velocity that increases linearly with time:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E15" content-type="numbered"><label>15</label><mml:math id="M141" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="|" open=""><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="" close="|"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="" close="|"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="|" open=""><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the prescribed acceleration, and N denotes the northern boundary.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
      <p id="d1e3272">We use simple uni-axial loading experiments to investigate the creation of
pair of conjugate faults and their intersection angle. After presenting the
results of simulations with the default parameters
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1"/>), we explore the effects of
experimental choices: confining pressure, choice of boundary conditions
(i.e., von Neumann versus Dirichlet), domain size, and spatial resolution and
inhomogeneities (i.e., localized weakness) in the initial thickness and
concentration field (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2"/>).
Finally, we study the behavior of two viscous–plastic rheologies with
different yield curves and compare these dependencies to what we can infer
from smaller- and larger-scale measurements from laboratory experiment and
RGPS observations (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS3"/>).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Uni-axial compressive test – default parameters</title>
      <p id="d1e3288">With default parameters (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>), a diamond-shaped
fracture appears in the shear strain rate and divergence fields after a few
seconds of integration (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>). After one time step (or
0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the stress states already lie on the yield curve, and the
fracture is readily seen in the deformation fields (divergence and shear). We
iterate for a total of 20 s in order for the signal to be apparent in
the thickness and concentration fields. We do this to more clearly show the
link between position of the stress states on the yield curve and the
resulting deformation defined by the normal flow rule in the standard VP
rheology of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="text.72"/>. The shear deformation
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) shows where the ice slides in friction and deforms
plastically. From Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>, the simulated intersection angle is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">34</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3349"><bold>(a)</bold> First and <bold>(b)</bold> second strain invariants,
<bold>(c)</bold> ice thickness anomaly (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and
<bold>(d)</bold> stress states in normalized stress invariant space along with
the elliptical yield curve after 5 s of integration. The first and second
strain invariants represent the divergence and maximum shear strain rate,
respectively. The modeled angle of fracture is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">34</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3411">After a few time steps, the ice thickness decreases, particularly along the
LKFs (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>c) where divergence is maximal. Note that the loading
axis in our simple 1-D experiment is also the second principal axis, and
consequently the stress states are migrating along the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> axis as the
strain rate at the northern boundary increases. Fracture occurs after plastic
failure when the stress state reaches the yield curve and the ice starts to
move in divergence. This occurs in the half of the ellipse closer to the
origin (for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) where the normal to the flow rule points in the
direction of positive divergence (or first strain rate invariant) (see
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>). This explains the simulated divergent flow field
and lower ice thickness particularly along LKFs.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e3444">Schematic of stress states and failure in principal stress space.
Black arrows show how stresses move from zero at the beginning of loading
towards the yield curve until failure. Red points show the stress states at
failure – the intersection point between the second principal axis 2 (in
red) and the elliptical yield curve – for different ellipse ratios <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
1, 0.7. The red arrows show the direction of deformation with a normal flow
rule. The blue points and arrows show the case when the ice floe is confined
and the loading will lead to extra stress in the direction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Sensitivity experiments</title>
      <p id="d1e3484">In this section, we test the sensitivity of the standard VP model simulation
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1"/>) to the choice of resolution,
scale, and run time (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1"/>), boundary conditions
and confinement pressure (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2"/>),
and heterogeneity in the initial sea ice mass field
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS3"/>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e3497">Maximum shear strain rate (second strain invariant) after 10 s of integration for the default domain size and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a)</bold> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(b)</bold> and for the
default <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and a doubled domain size of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(c)</bold>. Note that for the case of the double
domain <bold>(c)</bold>, the southward velocity at the northern boundary was also
doubled to keep the deformation rate constant and that this simulation is
limited to 2 s for numerical efficiency.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

<?pagebreak page1173?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>3.2.1</label><title>Domain size, spatial resolution, and length of integration</title>
      <p id="d1e3586">The angle of intersection between a pair of conjugate faults does not change
with domain size and spatial resolution (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>). This is
expected because non-dimensionalizing the divergence of the internal ice
stress term (the only term that remains in this simple uni-axial test
experiment) by setting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> gives the same equations in
non-dimensional form, irrespective of the initial ice thickness or spatial
resolution. Consequently, the control and sensitivity experiments are scale-independent, and the behavior of the standard VP model can be readily
compared with results from RGPS, AVHRR, or laboratory experiments.</p>
      <p id="d1e3629">Continuing the integration to 2700 s (45 min), compared to 20 s
in the reference simulation, leads to the creation of smaller diamond-shaped
ice floes due to secondary and tertiary fracture lines
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). The openings are visible in the thickness and
concentration fields with thinner, less concentrated ice in the lead. In this
longer experiment, the sea ice also ridges, for instance, at the center of the
domain, where the apex of the diamonds fails in compression. There is also
some thicker ice at the northern boundary induced by the specified strain
rate at the northern boundary. The fracture pattern and presence of secondary
and tertiary fracture lines are in line with results from laboratory
experiments <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx55" id="paren.73"/> and with AVHRR and RGPS
observations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e3639">Sea ice thickness <bold>(a)</bold>, concentration <bold>(b)</bold>, maximum
shear strain rate <bold>(c)</bold>, and divergence <bold>(d)</bold> after 45 min of
integration (2700 s) in a uni-axial loading test. To make these longer simulations possible, both nonlinear and linear iterations
are limited to 150 per time step. Results show the development of secondary
fracture lines in all fields after the first fracture line has
formed.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f06.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3661">In the following, we always show results after 5 s of integration
because our main focus is on the initial fracture of the ice, that is, the
instant when the ice breaks for the first time under compression.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e3666">Maximum shear strain rate after 5 s of integration in a reduced
size domain (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with free-slip <bold>(a)</bold>
and no-slip <bold>(b)</bold> boundary conditions. Note that the no-slip boundary
condition forces the fracture to occur at the corner of the domain, leading
to a larger angle of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">39</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> versus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">34</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
control experiment. This suggests that the choice of boundary conditions in
current sea ice models needs to be revisited.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1174?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>3.2.2</label><title>Boundary conditions and geometry</title>
      <p id="d1e3744">The dynamics responsible for the ice fracture and location of the fracture
(presented above) take place far away from the eastern and western boundaries
and therefore do not depend on the choice of the corresponding boundary
conditions. We now investigate the sensitivity of the results to the choice
of boundary condition at the southern boundary. To this end, we force the
fracture line to intersect the southern boundary by reducing the domain size
to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with an ice floe of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the interior. In this case, the fracture
develops from corner to corner, and the angle is solely determined by the
geometry of the ice floe, that is, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>arctan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>b). With a free-slip boundary condition at the
southern boundary, the fracture angle is similar to the one from the control
simulation (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>a). That is, the no-slip condition
concentrates the stress to the corner of the ice floe touching the boundary
and predetermines the fracture location. A free-slip boundary condition is
therefore considered more physical in such idealized experiments where
fractures lines can extend from one boundary to another. This result can have
implications for simulation of LKFs in the Arctic that would extend from one
boundary to another, for instance in the Beaufort Sea.</p>
      <p id="d1e3819">No-slip or free-slip boundary conditions have little impact on the fracture
angle in the larger domain used in the control run simulation because the
LKFs always only touch one boundary and end in open water (results not
shown). With the free-slip boundary conditions, the stresses and strains are
only different south of the diamond fracture pattern because ice can move
along the southern boundary, and the second fracture cannot form.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1175?><p id="d1e3822">We now explore the effect of confining pressure on the eastern and western
boundaries on the angle of fracture when using a (convex) elliptical yield
curve with a normal flow rule. To do so, we replace the open boundaries to
the east and the west with solid walls and the open water gaps with ice of
thicknesses <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Note that the ice strength is linearly related to the ice
thickness (Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E4"/>). Therefore the normal stress at the edge of
the floe is completely defined by the thickness of the surrounding ice.</p>
      <p id="d1e3838">With an increasing lateral confinement pressure (i.e., an increasing ice
thickness <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> next to the main floe), all stress states are moved to higher
compressive stresses (blue curve in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>), and the
fracture angle increases (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>). In this case, the stress
states are again migrating in a direction parallel to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> axis but
with a non-zero <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value. The stress states of the ice along the
fracture are therefore located in a region of higher compressive stresses on
the yield curve where the divergence is reduced or even changes sign. With
increasing confinement, the stress states of the ice floe move to more
negative values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> along a line of constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (blue
line in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>) with deformation moving towards more
convergent states. Between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the regime changes
from lead opening to ridging, as the fracture angle increases to values above
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is inconsistent with the behavior of a granular
material where the angle of fracture is independent of confining pressure in
uni-axial loading laboratory experiment.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e3948">Maximum shear strain rates (left) and stress state in stress
invariant space (right) after 5 s of integration for different confinement
pressure: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a)</bold> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(b)</bold>. Note how stress states with divergent strain
rates <bold>(a)</bold> migrate left towards convergent strain
rates <bold>(b)</bold>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>3.2.3</label><title>Effects of the heterogeneity</title>
      <p id="d1e4016">So far, all initial conditions have been homogeneous in thickness and
concentration within the ice floe. In practice, sea ice (in a numerical
model but also in reality) is not homogeneous. A local weakness in the
initial ice field is likely the starting point of a crack within the ice
field <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.74"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content><named-content content-type="post">her Fig. 5c</named-content></xref>. Local
failures raise the stress level in adjacent grid cells, and a crack can
propagate. Note that the crack propagation in an “ideal” plastic model such
as the VP model is instantaneous, and this propagation is not seen between
time steps. As a consequence, lines of failure<?pagebreak page1176?> will likely develop between
local weaknesses. The location of weaknesses in the ice field together with
the ice rheology (yield curve and flow rule) both determine the fracture
angles <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24 bib1.bibx1" id="paren.75"/>. The influence of
previous leads on subsequent lead creation have been studied with a
discrete element model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx74" id="paren.76"/> and has been used to
constrain new anisotropic rheologies that include the effects of embedded
anisotropic leads <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx71 bib1.bibx72" id="paren.77"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e4037">Sea ice thickness with two ice-free areas <bold>(a)</bold> and maximum
shear strain rates for two different ellipse aspect ratios <bold>(b, c)</bold>
after 5 s of integration. The position of the ice weaknesses determines the
location and angle of the fracture lines, and also the rheology parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
has an entirely different effect. The main fractures lines are at angles of
25 and 34<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 57.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f09.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4102">To illustrate this behavior, we start new simulations from an initial ice
field with two areas of zero ice thickness and zero ice concentration, hence
weaker ice (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a). After <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> these simulations
yield fracture patterns that are dramatically different from those of the
control run simulation (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1"/>): the
fracture lines now start and terminate at the locations of the weak ice
areas. Still, changing the shear strength of the ice (by changing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)
changes the fracture pattern (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>b and c). With <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the
angles are much wider than with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is consistent with the general
dependence of fracture angles on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1"/>). Our simulations cannot lead to conclusive
statements about the relative importance of heterogeneity of initial
conditions and yield curve parameters for the fracture pattern, but we can
state that both affect the simulations in a way that requires treating them
separately to avoid confounding effects. Details are deferred to a dedicated
study.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Effects of the yield curve on the fracture angle</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>3.3.1</label><title>Elliptical yield curve</title>
      <p id="d1e4180">Keeping <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">27.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kN</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at its default value, the maximal
shear strength <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is varied by changing the ellipse
ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Scaling the absolute values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> while
keeping <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> constant does not change the fracturing pattern as the tangent to
the ellipse stays the same (not shown). Changing the ellipse aspect ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
has a large effect on the fracture angle. The fracture angle decreases
monotonically as the shear strength of the material (or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) decreases, from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">61</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">32</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is clearly
inconsistent with the behavior of a granular material; in the sand castle
analogue this would correspond to a dry sand castle with steeper walls than a
moist sand castle. From the simple schematic of Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>, it
becomes clear that with increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the intersection of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
axis with the yield curve gradually migrates from the left side of the
ellipse to the right, where the normal to the yield curve points increasingly
towards convergent motion. We present a theoretical explanation for the
sensitivity of the fracture angle to the shear strength of the material (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
for the ellipse) in Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S2"/> by
rewriting the elliptical yield curve in local coordinates in the fracture
plane (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) instead of principal or stress invariant coordinates.
The fracture angle is then determined from the slope of the tangent to the
yield curve in local coordinates, and this angle follows from the Mohr's
circle <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="paren.78"><named-content content-type="pre">see, for instance,</named-content></xref>.</p>
      <p id="d1e4388"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="text.79"/> suggest a smaller ellipse aspect ratio (e.g.,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to obtain a closer match with RADARSAT-derived distribution of
deformation rates in pan-Arctic simulations at 10 km resolution. From
Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>, the corresponding fracture angle
is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">61</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, that is, much larger than that is derived
from RADARSAT images. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> also changes the distribution of the stress states
on the yield curve. As the stress state migrates along the principal stress
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> until it reaches the yield curve in our uni-axial compressive
test, the stress states are in the second half of the ellipse for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
the resulting deformation is in convergence (or ridging). The ice thickness
increases due to ridging along the shear lines (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>). In a
longer simulation with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (not shown) the ice does not open but only
ridges, with thicker ice building up within the ice floe. This is in strong
contrast to the results with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> presented in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1"/>, where the initial floe breaks up and
separate floes form.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e4494">Fracture angles as a function of ellipse aspect ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with
constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (red, bottom scale;
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1"/>). The theoretical relationship
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">th</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ell</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>arccos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (dashed black curve;
Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.E31"/> in the Appendix) fits the modeled angles almost
perfectly with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9995</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msqrt><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">VAR</mml:mi></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.089</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The simulated
fracture angles for the Coulombic yield curve as a function of the slope of
the Mohr–Coulomb limbs (blue, top scale; Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2"/>)
fit the theoretical relationship
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">th</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>arccos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> only for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (black line; Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.E32"/> in the Appendix). The errors bars
mean that there was more than one unique fracture line: for a small <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
the ice breaks easily along the lateral edges of the floe. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the ambiguity appears because the stress states are
both on the linear limbs and on the elliptical cap. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (blue
line), the fracture angle is the same as for the ellipse for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f10.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e4712">Maximum shear strain <bold>(a)</bold>, ice thickness
anomaly <bold>(b)</bold>, divergence <bold>(c)</bold>, and stress state in stress
invariant space <bold>(d)</bold> after 5 s of integration for a smaller ellipse
aspect ration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the reference run in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1"/>). Compared to the control run on
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>, the angle of fracture is larger (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">61</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the stress states are in the second half of the ellipse (with
strain rates pointing into the convergent direction), and there is convergence
along the fracture lines <bold>(b)</bold> in agreement with the schematic in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f11.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>3.3.2</label><title>Coulombic yield curve</title>
      <p id="d1e4799">In this section, we replace the elliptical yield curve with a Coulombic yield
curve <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.80"/>. This yield curve consists of a
Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope – two straight limbs in principal or stress
invariant space with a slope <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> – capped by an elliptical yield curve
for high compressive stresses. Note that the flow rule applies only to the
elliptical cap in this yield curve. For the two straight limbs, the yield
curve is normal to the truncated ellipse with the first stress invariant
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For a Mohr–Coulomb yield curve, the fracture angle depends
directly on the slope of the Mohr–Coulomb limb of the yield curve.
Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S1"/> provides a theoretical
explanation of how the angle of fracture depends on the internal angle of
friction.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e4827">Maximum shear strain (top) and stress state in stress invariant
space (bottom) for different internal angles of friction. <bold>(a)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.85</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">58</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<bold>(c)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">72</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> after 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
integration. The angles of fracture are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">41</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/> illustrates how <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> depends
on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for a Coulombic yield curve.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f12.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1178?><p id="d1e4995"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The slope of the Mohr–Coulomb limbs of the Coulombic yield curve <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
varied between 0.3 and 1.0 (corresponding to an internal angle of friction
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>arcsin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17.5</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to study how the fracture
angle depends on the shear strength of the material. In all experiments with
the Coulombic yield curve, we use a tensile strength of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and an ellipse ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, following
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.81"/>. The tensile strength is introduced mainly for
numerical reasons. With zero tensile strength, the state of stress in a
simple uni-axial compressive test with no confinement pressure is tangential
to the yield curve at the origin (failure in tension) and on the two straight
limbs (failure in shear) simultaneously, resulting in a numerical
instability. With tensile stress (or confinement pressure) included, the
state of stress reaches the yield only on the two limbs of the yield curve
(see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>a).</p>
      <p id="d1e5084">For the Coulombic yield curve, there are two distinct regimes of failure.
When the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> axis intersects the yield curve on the two straight
limbs, which happens for our configuration for angles of friction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>a, left hand side for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the angle of fracture <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as per
standard theory (Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S1"/>). When the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> axis intersects the yield curve on the elliptical cap, which
happens for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>c, for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">72</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), we observed a discontinuity in the fracture angle
associated with the non-differentiable corner in the yield curve. Note that
this corner cannot be removed (by changing the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
elliptical cap) as the two straight Mohr–Coulomb limbs are defined as a
truncation of the ellipse. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in our
configuration, the numerical solver has difficulties reaching convergence
because of the non-differentiable corner in the yield curve between the
elliptical cap and the two straight limbs (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>b
for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">53</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Finally for very small angles <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, a
large number of fractures, as opposed to single well defined fracture lines,
appear because of the weakness of the material in shear. This behavior is not
something that is typically observed in a uni-axial compressive test of a
granular material which generally have higher shear resistance. Note that the
value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that is characteristic of the individual regimes depends on
the amount of tensile strength.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e5318">Our idealized experiments using the VP rheologies resolve fracture lines as
described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="text.82"/> and akin to observations
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35" id="paren.83"/>. The fracturing of the ice floe creates smaller
floes in a manner that appears realistic, for example, compared to
Landsat-7 images <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx55" id="paren.84"><named-content content-type="post">Fig. 2</named-content></xref>. At the high
resolution of 25 m the original interpretation of the continuity assumption,
namely that each grid cell should represent a distribution of floes
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="paren.85"/>, is no longer valid, but we show that the fracture
angle is<?pagebreak page1179?> independent of resolution and scale as expected. Instead, the
emerging discontinuities and the polygonal diamond shape of the fracture
lines that appear as floes spanning many grid cells are a consequence of the
mathematical characteristics of the VP model
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="paren.86"/>. Diamond-shaped floes are observed in the
Arctic Ocean <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15 bib1.bibx65" id="paren.87"/> and
also modeled using a discrete element model (DEM) in an idealized experiment
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx73" id="paren.88"/>. The elastic anisotropic plastic (EAP)
rheology assumes predominately diamond-shaped floes in sea ice
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx70" id="paren.89"/>. A sea ice model with EAP creates sharper
fractures than a model with the elastic–viscous–plastic
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.90"><named-content content-type="pre">EVP;</named-content></xref> rheology
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.91"/>. The authors concluded that the anisotropic model
may improve the fracturing process for sea ice, especially by creating areas
of oriented weaknesses, and particularly at coarse resolution where the
fracture is not resolved by the grid spacing. In the experiments presented
here, the VP rheologies lead to sharp and anisotropic fracture lines without
any additional assumptions.</p>
      <p id="d1e5356">We explored some experimental choices to separate their effects from those of
the rheology parameters. The fracture angles do not depend on the spatial
resolution and domain size as expected in our idealized numerical experiment
setup (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1"/>, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>). The
maximum viscosities in the VP model are very high, and consequently, the VP
model can be considered an ideal plastic material (i.e., a model with an
elastic component that has an infinite elastic wave speed). For this reason,
fracture in a VP model occurs almost instantaneously. Observed timescales of
fracture are on the order of 10 s for 60 m floe diameters
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="paren.92"><named-content content-type="post">Fig. 6b</named-content></xref>, and from typical
elastic wave speeds of 200–2000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, large cracks of order
1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can form in minutes to hours <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42" id="paren.93"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e5397">In our setup, the no-slip boundary condition has little effect on the
fracture pattern, but our results suggest that in basin-wide simulations the
choice of boundary conditions affects the fracture depending on the geometry
and stress direction. The no-slip condition appears to be unphysical. It acts
to concentrate the stress on the corners of the floe and forces the fracture
to occur at this location. This should motivate a more thorough investigation
of the boundary conditions for LKFs that form between one shoreline and
another. Similar results were obtained from analytical solutions in idealized
geometry for the Mohr–Coulomb yield curve with a double sliding deformation
law <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx56" id="paren.94"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e5403">The confining pressure (i.e., thin ice imposed on the side of the domain)
changes the distribution of stress within the domain. This results in
different deformation patterns (shear and divergence) and different fracture
angles because the yield curve is convex and uses a normal flow rule. From
this we can conclude that by surrounding our floe with open water, we get the
most acute angles from the rheology in this uni-axial compression setup. This
is not consistent with the behavior of typical granular material for which an
angle of fracture is independent of the confining pressure
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.95"/>. Details of a heterogeneous ice cover also affect
the fracture pattern. LKFs link the weaknesses in the ice cover, but the
pattern still depends on the preferred fracture angles implied by the model
rheology. In summary, we are confident that our choice of parameters allows
us to isolate the effects of the rheology and the yield curve on the
fracturing process.</p>
      <p id="d1e5410">In granular material, large shear resistance is linked to contact normals
between floes that oppose the shear motion and lead to dilatation
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="paren.96"/>. In our experiments, increasing shear strength
in the standard VP model (reducing the ellipse aspect ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) does not
decrease but increases the fracture angle. This is in contrast to the
behavior of granular material where larger shear strength leads to lower
fracture angles – think of a moist sand castle versus a dry sand castle. In
addition, high shear strength in the VP model with the elliptical yield curve
leads to convergence along the fracture plane, whereas observations (e.g.,
RADARSAT-derived deformation fields) show a range of positive and negative
divergence along LKFs – in accordance with laboratory tests of granular
material that show a variable internal angle of friction that depends on the
distribution of the contact normals between individual floes
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.97"/>. Inspection of the stress states in the 2-D stress
plane suggests that the intersection of the yield curve with the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
axis has an important role in the fracture process. This intersection point
appears to determine the fracture angle. In fact, the angle is determined
from the intersection of the Mohr's circle of stress with the yield curve to
give a theoretical relationship between the fracture angle and the ellipse
ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. With our experiments, we were able to confirm this relationship
empirically.</p>
      <p id="d1e5444">Arctic-wide simulations improve metrics of sea ice concentration, thickness,
and velocity by decreasing the value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the standard elliptical yield
curve, that is, by adding shear and bi-axial tensile and compressive strength
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45 bib1.bibx63" id="paren.98"/>. The representation of
sea ice arches improves with smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.99"/>, as do
LKF statistics <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="paren.100"/>. Our results, however, show that
this makes the fracture angles larger, which is in stark contrast to what we
expect to be necessary to improve the creation of LKFs in sea ice models.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1180?><p id="d1e5470">The fracture angle and the sea ice opening and ridging depending on the
deformation states are consistent with the theory of the yield curve analysis
developed in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.101"/> and the Mohr's circle
framework that we present in
Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S2"/>. Interestingly, a change
of ice maximum compressive strength <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with a constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> has no
influence on the LKF creation, although <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is usually thought of as
the principal parameter of sea ice models in climate simulations
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.102"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. The effects of bi-axial tensile
strength <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on fracture processes require further investigation,
especially given the fact that the assumption of zero tensile strength is
being challenged <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7" id="paren.103"/>. The ice strength parameter
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋆</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (the parameter governing the change of ice strength depending on
ice concentration; Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E4"/>) was not studied here, although it
appears to be an important tuning parameter, and it also helps to improve
basin-wide simulations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="paren.104"/>. The simulations
presented in this study are not realistic and cannot be compared directly to
observations of ice floe fracture. For instance, our idealized ice floe is
homogeneous, while sea ice is known to feature some weaknesses like thermal
cracks or melt ponds.</p>
      <p id="d1e5543">With the Coulombic yield curve, the simulated fracture angle can be smaller
than for the elliptical yield curve. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
theory predicts <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.8</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S2"/>). The simulated fracture
angle with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23.5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is close to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≃</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.105"/>.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.106"/> developed a different Mohr–Coulomb
theory linking the internal angle of friction and the fracture angle. This complex
theory takes into account the fractal (or self-similar) nature of sea ice. It
gives different results but is inadequate for a single ice floe simulated as
presented here. Based on the results of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.107"/>,
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx66" id="text.108"/> used observed fracture patterns to design a
curved diamond yield curve. But this yield curve also contains a
non-differentiable point, which will be problematic for numerical reasons.
The Coulombic yield curve used here uses a normal flow, and consequently
divergence will always be present along shear lines. In situ measurements,
however, show that the deformations follow a non-normal flow rule
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx69" id="paren.109"/>, and large-scale observations show both divergence and
convergence (ridges) along LKFs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx58" id="paren.110"/>. There are
alternative flow rules still to be explored, for example, a double-sliding law
with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34" id="paren.111"/> or without dilatation included
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3 bib1.bibx61" id="paren.112"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e5672">Motivated by the observation that the intersection angles in a 2 km
Arctic-wide simulation of sea ice are generally larger than in the RGPS
dataset <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.113"/>, the fracturing of ice under compression
was studied with two VP rheologies in a highly idealized geometry and with
very small grid spacing of 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The main conclusions are given in
the following.</p>
      <p id="d1e5686">In our experimental configuration with uni-axial compression, fracture angles
below 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> are not possible in a VP model with an elliptical
yield curve. Observations suggest much lower values. We find an empirical
relationship between the fracture angle and the ellipse ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
elliptical yield curve that can be fully explained by the convexity of the
yield curve (Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S2"/>). In contrast
to expectations, increasing the maximum shear strength in the sea ice model
increases the fracture angle. Along a fracture line, there can be both
divergence and convergence depending on the shear strength of the ice, linked
to the flow rule. The simulated ice opens and creates leads with an ellipse
ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (shear strength is smaller than compressive strength) and ridges
for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (shear strength is larger than compressive strength).</p>
      <p id="d1e5731">With a modified Coulombic yield curve, the fracture angle can be decreased to
values expected from observations, but the non-differentiable corner points
of this yield curve lead to numerical (convergence) issues and, for some
values of the coefficient of internal friction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, to fracture patterns
that are difficult to interpret. At these corner points, two different slopes
meet and give two non-unique solutions for fracture angles and deformation
directions. We recommend avoiding non-differentiable yield curves (with a
normal flow rule) in viscous–plastic sea ice models.</p>
      <p id="d1e5741">More generally, the model produces diamond-shaped fracture patterns. Later
the ice floe disintegrates and several smaller floes develop. The fracturing
process in the ice floe in our configuration is independent of the experiment
resolution and scale but sensitive to boundary conditions (no-slip or
free-slip). The fracture angle in the VP model is also sensitive to the
confining pressure. This is not consistent with the notion of sea ice as a
granular material. Unsurprisingly, the yield curve plays an important role in
fracturing sea ice in a numerical model as it governs the deformation of the
ice as a function of the applied stress.</p>
      <p id="d1e5745">The idealized experiment of a uni-dimensional compression is useful to
explore the effects of the yield curve because all other parameters are
controlled. Historically, the discrimination between the different yield
curves was not possible because of the scarcity of sea ice drift data. Model
comparisons to recent sea ice deformation datasets, such as from RADARSAT,
imply that we would need to increase the shear strength with the ellipse in
the standard VP rheology to match observations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="paren.114"/>. We
find that this increases the fracture angles, creating a dilemma. Therefore,
the high-resolution idealized experiment presented in this work provides a
framework to investigate and discriminate different rheologies – a yield
curve and a flow rule.</p>
      <p id="d1e5751">If Arctic-wide sea ice simulations with a resolution of 25 m are not
feasible today because of computational cost, we can still imagine small
experiments being useful for process modeling on small scales when local and
high-resolution observations (e.g., wind, ice velocities) are available. For
example, such process modeling studies could be used to constrain the
rheology with data from the upcoming MOSAiC campaign
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.115"/> that will provide a full year of sea
ice observations in pack ice. Such simulations would also need to take into
account the effects of heterogeneous ice cover and wind patterns, with
potentially convergent and divergent wind forcing. Most climate models use
the standard VP rheology <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.116"/> or one of its variants
(e.g., EVP). Results presented here, however, imply that a more physical
yield curve with a (possibly non-associative) flow rule is required. Such a
yield curve would have to be continuous in all representations,
differentiable without corners, have some cohesion, and be consistent with
available<?pagebreak page1181?> observations of fracture angles in convergent and divergent flow.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e5765">No datasets were used in this article. All simulation
data have been obtained with the MITgcm (<uri>http://mitgcm.org</uri>, last
access: 4 April 2019). Model configuration and code modifications are
described in detail in the paper. Additionally they are available on GitHub
(<uri>https://github.com/dringeis/MITgcm/tree/obcs_seaice_cont+mc</uri>, last
access: 4 April 2019).</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><app-group>

<?pagebreak page1182?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <label>Appendix A</label><title>Fracture angle</title>
      <p id="d1e5785">Below, we derive a relationship between the fracture angle and the internal
angle of friction for a Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion for completeness. We
consider an arbitrary piece of a 2-D medium (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F13"/>a) that is
subject to stresses in physical stress space <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).
Computing the change of coordinates as described in Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E7"/>), we
can consider the principal stresses (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) applied on the
medium (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F13"/>b). From the force balance, the normal stress
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the shear stress <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> on a plane at an angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from the
principal stress axis can be written as (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F13"/>b and
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="altparen.117"/>)

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M292" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.S1.E16"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>A1</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.S1.E17"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>A2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the area of the friction plane on which the stresses are
applied (in 2-D it is just a line). The second trigonometric term comes from
the fact that this surface is tilted compared to the direction of stresses
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Using THE angle sum and difference identities of
trigonometry, we can write the stresses <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in terms of the
principal stresses <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M300" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.S1.E18"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>A3</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.S1.E19"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>A4</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          In terms of the stress invariants <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, this gives

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M303" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.S1.E20"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>A5</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.S1.E21"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>A6</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          The Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion can be written in the fracture plane
stress space (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F14"/>) as
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E22" content-type="numbered"><label>A7</label><mml:math id="M304" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the internal angle of friction, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the cohesion when no
stresses are applied <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx64" id="paren.118"/>. Substituting
Eqs. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E20"/>) and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E21"/>) in Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E22"/>), we get
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E23" content-type="numbered"><label>A8</label><mml:math id="M307" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        and after multiplying both sides by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M309" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.S1.E24"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>A9</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          By geometrical construction (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F14"/>), the MC criterion is
satisfied when <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx64" id="paren.119"><named-content content-type="pre">see also</named-content><named-content content-type="post">Sect. 20.4</named-content></xref>
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E25" content-type="numbered"><label>A10</label><mml:math id="M310" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        so that Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E24"/>) becomes
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E26" content-type="numbered"><label>A11</label><mml:math id="M311" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        from which we get the classical result of material deformation physics:
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E27" content-type="numbered"><label>A12</label><mml:math id="M312" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⇒</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F13"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d1e6731">Stress state in physical stress space <bold>(a)</bold> and in an
arbitrary coordinate system oriented at an angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with respect to the
principal stress axes <bold>(b)</bold>. The principal stresses are the
eigenvalues of the stress tensor in an arbitrary coordinate system, and the
angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is derived from the rotation matrix composed of the two
eigenvectors. Note that in the study above there is no shear stress
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, so principal axes and physical axes are aligned (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=156.490157pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f13.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F14"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A2}?><label>Figure A2</label><caption><p id="d1e6789">Mohr's circle of stress (black) with the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion
(red) of the angle of internal friction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (red) and cohesion <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) space. From Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E27"/>), the deformation is
created with an angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that can be represented in Mohr's circle
(blue).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=156.490157pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f14.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>

<?pagebreak page1184?><app id="App1.Ch1.S2">
  <label>Appendix B</label><title>Fracture angle and yield curve</title>
      <p id="d1e6846">A yield curve can be defined in the local stress (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), principal
stress (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), or stress invariant (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) spaces. The
latter gives the center and radius of the Mohr's circle of stress defining
all equivalent stress states (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for all angles with respect to
a reference coordinate system. This allows the translation of the elliptical
yield curve from the standard principal or stress invariant space to a local
stress coordinate system (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). In this sense, we can plot the
yield curve in (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) space as the envelope of all Mohr's circles
for each point on the elliptical yield curve defined in stress invariant
coordinates (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.F15"/> for an illustration with the
elliptical yield curve). In the following, we refer to this envelope of all
Mohr's circles as the reconstructed yield curve. The tangent to this curve
can be expressed as (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.F16"/>)
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E28" content-type="numbered"><label>B1</label><mml:math id="M329" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e6990">We can then express the fracture angle for stress states on the yield curve
envelope by placing Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.E28"/>) in Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E27"/>):

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M330" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>arcsin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.S2.E29"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>B2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>arccos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          This is the same relation presented <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="paren.120"/> and
used previously <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx67" id="paren.121"/> but is obtained within the
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) stress space.</p>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>B1</label><title>Elliptical yield curve</title>
      <p id="d1e7146">From the previous equations, some implications about the elliptical yield
curve immediately follow. As shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>, in a
uni-directional compressive setup the slope of a tangent to the yield curve
changes with the ellipse ratio. The convexity of the ellipse implies that the
ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of shear strength <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to
compressive strength <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> becomes smaller with smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. If we compute
the slope of the tangent to the elliptical yield curve at the intersection
point between the yield curve and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, we get
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E30" content-type="numbered"><label>B3</label><mml:math id="M338" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="|" open=""><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Inserting this relationship into Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.E29"/>) gives the angle of
fracture for the uni-axial compressive experiment with an ellipse ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E31" content-type="numbered"><label>B4</label><mml:math id="M340" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">th</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ell</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>arccos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F15"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B1}?><label>Figure B1</label><caption><p id="d1e7336">Illustration of the Mohr's circle applied to the elliptical yield
curve (black ellipse) in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> space, some examples of Mohr's
circles (blue), and the reconstructed yield curve (red) in the fracture plane
space. The orange Mohr's circle illustrates the case in which no fracture lines
exists, for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=156.490157pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f15.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F16"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B2}?><label>Figure B2</label><caption><p id="d1e7377">Mohr's circle of stress with an arbitrary yield curve (black line)
in the fracture plane reference. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the tangent to the
yield curve, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the internal angle of friction as described in
Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S1"/>. We note that
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). For a slightly different
Mohr's circle (grey), the blue and red tangents meet in the same point on
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=156.490157pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f16.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e7466">Note that a yield curve in (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) space with a tangent slope above
unity does not have a Mohr's circle that can be tangent to the yield curve in
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) space (orange circle on in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.F15"/>). This
implies that no angle of fracture can be derived for these stress states.
This is the case for the elliptical yield curve for low and high compressive
stresses. It is still unclear what happens in the VP model for stress states
on the yield curve that have a tangent with a slope higher than unity
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="paren.122"><named-content content-type="pre">see also</named-content></xref>. Note also that for some
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">II</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) states, the ice will actually fail in tension, as
the reconstructed yield curve with a few points in the first and fourth
quadrant.</p>
      <p id="d1e7529">The shear and bulk viscosities are symmetrical about the center of the
ellipse. This implies that they are equal for divergence and convergence.
Clearly this is not physical since, for shear deformations where ice floes
continue to interact with one another (termed the quasi-static flow regime
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="paren.123"/>, divergent flow counterintuitively should have
more ice–ice interactions and higher viscosities than convergent flow –
because divergent flow is the result of a higher number of contact normals
opposing the shear. When the divergence is large and floes no longer
interact, the shear and bulk viscosities are still symmetrical about the
center of the ellipse. While this is nonphysical, it does lead to<?pagebreak page1185?> more
numerical stability because the extra viscosity or dissipation of energy
regularizes the problem. We also note that a yield curve with a tangent that
has a slope smaller than 1 (in absolute value) in the first and fourth
quadrant (positive first principal stress) is unphysical because it would
lead to a diamond-shaped pair of ice fracture, even in a uni-axial tensile
test, which is inconsistent with laboratory experiments
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9 bib1.bibx44" id="paren.124"/>. We conclude that adding tensile
strength to the elliptical yield curve may not be physical. The behavior of
the elliptical yield curve in uni-axial tensile tests will be explored
elsewhere.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>B2</label><title>Coulombic yield curve</title>
      <p id="d1e7546">Applying Mohr's circle to the Coulombic yield curve explains why the
non-differentiable corners in the yield curve lead to numerical problems
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.F17"/>). The tangent does not vary smoothly, and the
reconstructed yield curve in the failure plane (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) becomes
discontinuous (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.F17"/>, red line). As shown in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2"/>, when the stress states fall on only one of
the two parts (ellipse or limb) the conjugate faults form as expected. Using
Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S2.E31"/>), with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as the slope of the Mohr–Coulomb limbs of
the Coulombic yield curve, the fracture angle is given by
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E32" content-type="numbered"><label>B5</label><mml:math id="M356" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">th</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>arccos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          which is identical to Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E27"/>).</p>
      <p id="d1e7619"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The Coulombic yield curve with an internal angle of friction of 1 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and no cohesion (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="paren.125"><named-content content-type="pre">also called the truncated ellipse method,
TEM;</named-content><named-content content-type="post">Appendix</named-content></xref> only has one possible solution with an
angle of fracture equal to 0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., conjugate pairs of fracture are not
possible). Zero cohesion implies that the ice will deform, even for nearly no
stress. This yield curve also appears unphysical to us.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F17"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B3}?><label>Figure B3</label><caption><p id="d1e7665">Mohr's circle applied to the Coulombic yield curve (in black) in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> space, the Mohr's circle for the cusps between the elliptical
cap and the Mohr–Coulomb linear limbs (blue circle), and the yield curve in
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) space (red). We can see the effect of combining two
regimes; for the same Mohr's circle, two different angles coexist (red
circles) and are apart from each other.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=156.490157pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1167/2019/tc-13-1167-2019-f17.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e7709">DR designed the experiments, ran the simulations, and interpreted the results with the help of ML and LBT.
NH contributed to the discussion on LKFs in simulations and observations. DR
prepared the paper with contributions from all
co-authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e7715">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e7721">We would like to thank Jennifer Hutchings and Harry Heorton for their helpful
reviews on this paper, as well as Amélie Bouchat and Mathieu Plante for
useful discussion during this work. This project was supported by the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through the International Research
Training Group “Processes and impacts of climate change in the North
Atlantic Ocean and the Canadian Arctic” (IRTG 1904 ArcTrain). The authors
would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences for
support and hospitality during the program “Mathematics of sea ice
phenomena” when work on this paper was undertaken. This work was supported by EPSRC
grant numbers EP/K032208/1 and EP/R014604/1. This work is a contribution to
the Canadian Sea Ice and Snow Evolution (CanSISE) network funded by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, the
Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response (MEOPAR) Network, and
the NSERC Discovery Grants Program awarded to L. Bruno Tremblay.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>The article processing charges for this open-access <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> publication  were covered by a Research <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Centre of the Helmholtz Association.</p></ack><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e7733">This paper was edited by Daniel Feltham and reviewed
by Harry Heorton and Jennifer Hutchings.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Aksenov and Hibler(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Aksenov, Y. and Hibler, W. D.: Failure Propagation Effects in an
Anisotropic Sea Ice Dynamics Model, in: IUTAM Symposium on
Scaling Laws in Ice Mechanics and Ice Dynamics, edited by:
Dempsey, J. P. and Shen, H. H., Solid Mechanics and Its Applications,
363–372, UTAM Symposium, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA, 13–16 June 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Babi\'{c} et~al.(1990)Babi\'{c}, Shen, and Shen}}?><label>Babić et al.(1990)Babić, Shen, and Shen</label><mixed-citation>Babić, M., Shen, H. H., and Shen, H. T.: The stress tensor in granular
shear
flows of uniform, deformable disks at high solids concentrations, J.
Fluid Mech., 219, 81–118, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112090002877" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/S0022112090002877</ext-link>,
1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Balendran and Nemat-Nasser(1993)</label><mixed-citation>Balendran, B. and Nemat-Nasser, S.: Double sliding model for cyclic
deformation of granular materials, including dilatancy effects, J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, 41, 573–612, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(93)90049-L" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0022-5096(93)90049-L</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Bouchat and Tremblay(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Bouchat, A. and Tremblay, B.: Energy dissipation in viscous-plastic sea-ice
models, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 119, 976–994,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JC009436" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JC009436</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Bouchat and Tremblay(2017)</label><mixed-citation>Bouchat, A. and Tremblay, B.: Using sea-ice deformation fields to constrain
the mechanical strength parameters of geophysical sea ice, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 122, 5802–5825, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017JC013020</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Br\"{o}han and Kaleschke(2014)}}?><label>Bröhan and Kaleschke(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Bröhan, D. and Kaleschke, L.: A Nine-Year Climatology of Arctic
Sea
Ice Lead Orientation and Frequency from AMSR-E, Remote Sensing,
6, 1451–1475, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6021451" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs6021451</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Coon et al.(2007)Coon, Kwok, Levy, Pruis, Schreyer, and
Sulsky</label><mixed-citation>Coon, M., Kwok, R., Levy, G., Pruis, M., Schreyer, H., and Sulsky, D.: Arctic
Ice Dynamics Joint Experiment (AIDJEX) assumptions revisited and
found inadequate, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 112, C11S90,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003393" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JC003393</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Coon et al.(1974)Coon, Maykut, Pritchard, Rothrock, and
Thorndike</label><mixed-citation>
Coon, M. D., Maykut, A., G., Pritchard, R. S., Rothrock, D. A., and
Thorndike,
A. S.: Modeling The Pack Ice as an Elastic-Plastic Material,
AIDJEX Bulletin, 24, 1–106, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Cox and Richter-Menge(1985)</label><mixed-citation>Cox, G. F. N. and Richter-Menge, J. A.: Tensile Strength of Multi-Year
Pressure Ridge Sea Ice Samples, J. Energ. Resour.-ASME, 107,
375–380, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3231204" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1115/1.3231204</ext-link>, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Dansereau et al.(2016)Dansereau, Weiss, Saramito, and
Lattes</label><mixed-citation>Dansereau, V., Weiss, J., Saramito, P., and Lattes, P.: A Maxwell
elasto-brittle rheology for sea ice modelling, The Cryosphere, 10,
1339–1359, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1339-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-10-1339-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Dansereau et~al.(2017)Dansereau, D\'{e}mery, Berthier, Weiss, and
Ponson}}?><label>Dansereau et al.(2017)Dansereau, Démery, Berthier, Weiss, and
Ponson</label><mixed-citation>Dansereau, V., Démery, V., Berthier, E., Weiss, J., and Ponson, L.: Fault
orientation in damage failure under compression, arXiv:1712.08530 [cond-mat,
physics:physics], available at: <uri>http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.08530</uri> (last access: 4 April 2019), 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Dempsey et al.(2012)Dempsey, Xie, Adamson, and
Farmer</label><mixed-citation>Dempsey, J. P., Xie, Y., Adamson, R. M., and Farmer, D. M.: Fracture of a
ridged multi-year Arctic sea ice floe, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.,
76–77, 63–68, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2011.09.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coldregions.2011.09.012</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Dethloff et al.(2016)Dethloff, Rex, and
Shupe</label><mixed-citation>Dethloff, K., Rex, M., and Shupe, M.: Multidisciplinary drifting
Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC), EGU General
Assembly Conference Abstracts, 18, available at:
<uri>https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016EGUGA..18.3064D/abstract</uri> (last
access: 4 April 2019), 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Dumont et al.(2009)Dumont, Gratton, and
Arbetter</label><mixed-citation>Dumont, D., Gratton, Y., and Arbetter, T. E.: Modeling the Dynamics of the
North Water Polynya Ice Bridge, J. Phys. Oceanogr.,
39, 1448–1461, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JPO3965.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008JPO3965.1</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Erlingsson(1988)</label><mixed-citation>
Erlingsson, B.: Two-dimensional deformation patterns in sea ice, J.
Glaciol., 34, 301–308, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Feltham(2008)</label><mixed-citation>Feltham, D. L.: Sea Ice Rheology, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 40,
91–112, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.40.111406.102151" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev.fluid.40.111406.102151</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Girard et al.(2009)Girard, Weiss, Molines, Barnier, and
Bouillon</label><mixed-citation>Girard, L., Weiss, J., Molines, J. M., Barnier, B., and Bouillon, S.:
Evaluation of high-resolution sea ice models on the basis of statistical and
scaling properties of Arctic sea ice drift and deformation, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 114, C08015, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005182" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JC005182</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Girard et al.(2011)Girard, Bouillon, Weiss, Amitrano, Fichefet, and
Legat</label><mixed-citation>Girard, L., Bouillon, S., Weiss, J., Amitrano, D., Fichefet, T., and Legat,
V.:
A new modeling framework for sea-ice mechanics based on elasto-brittle
rheology, Ann. Glaciol., 52, 123–132,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756411795931499" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756411795931499</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Heorton et al.(2018)Heorton, Feltham, and
Tsamados</label><mixed-citation>Heorton, H. D. B. S., Feltham, D. L., and Tsamados, M.: Stress and
deformation
characteristics of sea ice in a high-resolution, anisotropic sea ice model,
Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 376, 20170349, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0349" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rsta.2017.0349</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Herman(2016)</label><mixed-citation>Herman, A.: Discrete-Element bonded-particle Sea Ice model DESIgn, version
1.3a – model description and implementation, Geosci. Model Dev., 9,
1219–1241, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1219-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-1219-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1187?><ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Hibler(1977)</label><mixed-citation>Hibler, W. D.: A viscous sea ice law as a stochastic average of plasticity,
J. Geophys. Res., 82, 3932–3938, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC082i027p03932" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JC082i027p03932</ext-link>, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Hibler(1979)</label><mixed-citation>Hibler, W. D.: A Dynamic Thermodynamic Sea Ice Model, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 9, 815–846,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1979)009&lt;0815:ADTSIM&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1979)009&lt;0815:ADTSIM&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Hibler and Schulson(1997)</label><mixed-citation>Hibler, W. D. and Schulson, E. M.: On modeling sea-ice fracture and flow in
numerical investigations of climate, Ann. Glaciol., 25, 26–32,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/S0260305500190019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/S0260305500190019</ext-link>,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Hibler and Schulson(2000)</label><mixed-citation>Hibler, W. D. and Schulson, E. M.: On modeling the anisotropic failure and
flow of flawed sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 105, 17105–17120,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC900045" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JC900045</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Hibler et al.(2006)Hibler, Hutchings, and Ip</label><mixed-citation>Hibler, W. D., Hutchings, J. K., and Ip, C. F.: sea-ice arching and multiple
flow States of Arctic pack ice, Ann. Glaciol., 44, 339–344,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756406781811448" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756406781811448</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Hundsdorfer et al.(1995)Hundsdorfer, Koren, vanLoon, and
Verwer</label><mixed-citation>Hundsdorfer, W., Koren, B., vanLoon, M., and Verwer, J. G.: A Positive
Finite-Difference Advection Scheme, J. Comput. Phys.,
117, 35–46, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1995.1042" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1006/jcph.1995.1042</ext-link>,
1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Hunke(2001)</label><mixed-citation>Hunke, E. C.: Viscous–Plastic Sea Ice Dynamics with the EVP
Model: Linearization Issues, J. Comput. Phys., 170,
18–38, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2001.6710" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1006/jcph.2001.6710</ext-link>,
2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Hunke and Dukowicz(1997)</label><mixed-citation>Hunke, E. C. and Dukowicz, J. K.: An Elastic–Viscous–Plastic Model
for Sea Ice Dynamics, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1849–1867,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1849:AEVPMF&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1849:AEVPMF&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Hutchings et al.(2004)Hutchings, Jasak, and
Laxon</label><mixed-citation>Hutchings, J. K., Jasak, H., and Laxon, S. W.: A strength implicit correction
scheme for the viscous-plastic sea ice model, Ocean Model., 7, 111–133,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1463-5003(03)00040-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1463-5003(03)00040-4</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Hutchings et al.(2005)Hutchings, Heil, and
Hibler</label><mixed-citation>Hutchings, J. K., Heil, P., and Hibler, W. D.: Modeling Linear Kinematic
Features in Sea Ice, Mon. Weather Rev., 133, 3481–3497,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3045.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR3045.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Hutter and Rajagopal(1994)</label><mixed-citation>Hutter, K. and Rajagopal, K. R.: On flows of granular materials, Continuum
Mech. Therm., 6, 81–139, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01140894" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF01140894</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Hutter et al.(2018)Hutter, Martin, and
Dimitris</label><mixed-citation>Hutter, N., Martin, L., and Dimitris, M.: Scaling Properties of Arctic
Sea Ice Deformation in a High-Resolution Viscous-Plastic
Sea Ice Model and in Satellite Observations, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 123, 672–687, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013119" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017JC013119</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Hutter et al.(2019)Hutter, Zampieri, and
Losch</label><mixed-citation>Hutter, N., Zampieri, L., and Losch, M.: Leads and ridges in Arctic sea ice
from RGPS data and a new tracking algorithm, The Cryosphere, 13, 627–645,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-627-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-13-627-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Ip et al.(1991)Ip, Hibler, and Flato</label><mixed-citation>
Ip, C. F., Hibler, W. D., and Flato, G. M.: On the effect of rheology on
seasonal sea-ice simulations, Ann. Glaciol., 15, 17–25, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Kwok(2001)</label><mixed-citation>Kwok, R.: Deformation of the Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Cover between
November 1996 and April 1997: A Qualitative Survey, in: IUTAM
Symposium on Scaling Laws in Ice Mechanics and Ice Dynamics,
edited by: Dempsey, J. P. and Shen, H. H., no. 94 in Solid Mechanics and
Its Applications, Springer Netherlands, 315–322,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9735-7_26" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-94-015-9735-7_26</ext-link>,
2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Lemieux and Tremblay(2009)</label><mixed-citation>Lemieux, J.-F. and Tremblay, B.: Numerical convergence of viscous-plastic sea
ice models, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 114, C05009, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JC005017</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Lemieux et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>Lemieux, J.-F., Tremblay, B., Sedláček, J., Tupper, P., Thomas, S.,
Huard,
D., and Auclair, J.-P.: Improving the numerical convergence of
viscous-plastic sea ice models with the Jacobian-free Newton–Krylov
method, J. Comput. Phys., 229, 2840–2852,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.12.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jcp.2009.12.011</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Lindsay and Rothrock(1995)</label><mixed-citation>Lindsay, R. W. and Rothrock, D. A.: Arctic sea ice leads from advanced very
high resolution radiometer images, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
100, 4533–4544, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC02393" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/94JC02393</ext-link>,
1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Linow and Dierking(2017)</label><mixed-citation>Linow, S. and Dierking, W.: Object-Based Detection of Linear
Kinematic Features in Sea Ice, Remote Sensing, 9, 493,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9050493" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs9050493</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Losch et al.(2010)Losch, Menemenlis, Campin, Heimbach, and
Hill</label><mixed-citation>Losch, M., Menemenlis, D., Campin, J.-M., Heimbach, P., and Hill, C.: On the
formulation of sea-ice models. Part 1: Effects of different solver
implementations and parameterizations, Ocean Model., 33, 129–144,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.12.008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.12.008</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><label>Marko and Thomson(1977)</label><mixed-citation>Marko, J. R. and Thomson, R. E.: Rectilinear leads and internal motions in
the ice pack of the western Arctic Ocean, J. Geophys. Res., 82, 979–987,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC082i006p00979" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JC082i006p00979</ext-link>, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Marsan et~al.(2012)Marsan, Weiss, Larose, and
M\'{e}taxian}}?><label>Marsan et al.(2012)Marsan, Weiss, Larose, and
Métaxian</label><mixed-citation>Marsan, D., Weiss, J., Larose, E., and Métaxian, J.-P.: Sea-ice thickness
measurement based on the dispersion of ice swell, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 131,
80–91, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3662051" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1121/1.3662051</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Marshall et al.(1997)Marshall, Adcroft, Hill, Perelman, and
Heisey</label><mixed-citation>Marshall, J., Adcroft, A., Hill, C., Perelman, L., and Heisey, C.: A
finite-volume, incompressible Navier Stokes model for studies of the
ocean on parallel computers, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 102,
5753–5766, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JC02775" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/96JC02775</ext-link>,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><label>Menge and Jones(1993)</label><mixed-citation>Menge, J. A. R. and Jones, K. F.: The tensile strength of first-year sea ice,
J. Glaciol., 39, 609–618, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/S0022143000016506" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/S0022143000016506</ext-link>,
1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>Miller et al.(2005)Miller, Laxon, and
Feltham</label><mixed-citation>Miller, P. A., Laxon, S. W., and Feltham, D. L.: Improving the spatial
distribution of modeled Arctic sea ice thickness, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, L18503, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023622" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GL023622</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><label>Overland et al.(1998)Overland, McNutt, Salo, Groves, and
Li</label><mixed-citation>
Overland, J. E., McNutt, S. L., Salo, S., Groves, J., and Li, S.: Arctic sea
ice as a granular plastic, J. Geophys. Res., 103,
21845–21868,
1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Popov(1976)</label><mixed-citation>
Popov, E. P.: Mechanics of Materials, 2nd edn., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., USA, 1976.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>Pritchard(1975)</label><mixed-citation>Pritchard, R. S.: An Elastic-Plastic Constitutive Law for Sea
Ice, J. Appl. Mech., 42, 379–384, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3423585" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1115/1.3423585</ext-link>, 1975.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><label>Pritchard(1988)</label><mixed-citation>Pritchard, R. S.: Mathematical characteristics of sea ice dynamics models,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 93, 15609–15618,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC093iC12p15609" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JC093iC12p15609</ext-link>,
1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>Rampal et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>Rampal, P., Bouillon, S., Ólason, E., and Morlighem, M.: neXtSIM: a new
Lagrangian sea ice model, The Cryosphere, 10, 1055–1073,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1055-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-10-1055-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Rothrock(1975)</label><mixed-citation>Rothrock, D. A.: The steady drift of an incompressible Arctic ice cover,
J. Geophys. Res., 80, 387–397, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC080i003p00387" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JC080i003p00387</ext-link>,
1975.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><label>Rothrock and Thorndike(1984)</label><mixed-citation>Rothrock, D. A. and Thorndike, A. S.: Measuring the sea ice floe size
distribution, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 89, 6477–6486,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC089iC04p06477" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JC089iC04p06477</ext-link>,
1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx53"><label>Schmidt et al.(2014)Schmidt, Kelley, Nazarenko, Ruedy, Russell,
Aleinov, Bauer, Bauer, Bhat, Bleck, Canuto, Chen, Cheng, Clune, Genio,
Fainchtein, Faluvegi, Hansen, Healy, Kiang, Koch, Lacis, LeGrande, Lerner,
Lo, Matthews, Menon, Miller, Oinas, Oloso, Perlwitz, Puma, Putman, Rind,
Romanou, Sato, Shindell, Sun, Syed, Tausnev, Tsigaridis, Unger, Voulgarakis,
Yao, and Zhang</label><mixed-citation>Schmidt, G. A., Kelley, M., Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R., Russell, G. L.,
Aleinov,
I., Bauer, M., Bauer, S. E., Bhat, M. K., Bleck, R., Canuto, V., Chen, Y.-H.,
Cheng, Y., Clune, T. L., Genio, A. D., Fainchtein, R. d., Faluvegi, G.,
Hansen, J. E., Healy, R. J., Kiang, N. Y., Koch, D., Lacis, A. A., LeGrande,
A. N., Lerner, J., Lo, K. K., Matthews, E. E., Menon, S., Miller, R. L.,
Oinas, V., Oloso, A. O., Perlwitz, J. P., Puma,<?pagebreak page1188?> M. J., Putman, W. M., Rind,
D., Romanou, A., Sato, M., Shindell, D. T., Sun, S., Syed, R. A., Tausnev,
N., Tsigaridis, K., Unger, N., Voulgarakis, A., Yao, M.-S., and Zhang, J.:
Configuration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the
CMIP5 archive, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 6, 141–184,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000265" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013MS000265</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><label>Schreyer et al.(2006)Schreyer, Sulsky, Munday, Coon, and
Kwok</label><mixed-citation>Schreyer, H. L., Sulsky, D. L., Munday, L. B., Coon, M. D., and Kwok, R.:
Elastic-decohesive constitutive model for sea ice, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 111, C11S26, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003334" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JC003334</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx55"><label>Schulson(2004)</label><mixed-citation>Schulson, E. M.: Compressive shear faults within arctic sea ice: Fracture
on scales large and small, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 109, C07016,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JC002108" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JC002108</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx56"><label>Sirven and Tremblay(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Sirven, J. and Tremblay, B.: Analytical Study of an Isotropic
Viscoplastic Sea Ice Model in Idealized Configurations, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 45, 331–354, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-13-0109.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JPO-D-13-0109.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx57"><label>Spreen et al.(2017)Spreen, Kwok, Menemenlis, and
Nguyen</label><mixed-citation>Spreen, G., Kwok, R., Menemenlis, D., and Nguyen, A. T.: Sea-ice deformation
in a coupled ocean–sea-ice model and in satellite remote sensing data, The
Cryosphere, 11, 1553–1573, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1553-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-11-1553-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx58"><label>Stern et al.(1995)Stern, Rothrock, and Kwok</label><mixed-citation>Stern, H. L., Rothrock, D. A., and Kwok, R.: Open water production in
Arctic
sea ice: Satellite measurements and model parameterizations, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 100, 20601–20612, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JC02306" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95JC02306</ext-link>,
1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx59"><label>Stroeve et al.(2014)Stroeve, Barrett, Serreze, and
Schweiger</label><mixed-citation>Stroeve, J., Barrett, A., Serreze, M., and Schweiger, A.: Using records from
submarine, aircraft and satellites to evaluate climate model simulations of
Arctic sea ice thickness, The Cryosphere, 8, 1839–1854,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1839-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-8-1839-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx60"><label>Sulsky et al.(2007)Sulsky, Schreyer, Peterson, Kwok, and
Coon</label><mixed-citation>Sulsky, D., Schreyer, H., Peterson, K., Kwok, R., and Coon, M.: Using the
material-point method to model sea ice dynamics, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 112, C02S90, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003329" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JC003329</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx61"><label>Tremblay and Mysak(1997)</label><mixed-citation>Tremblay, L.-B. and Mysak, L. A.: Modeling Sea Ice as a Granular
Material, Including the Dilatancy Effect, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 27, 2342–2360,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;2342:MSIAAG&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;2342:MSIAAG&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx62"><label>Tsamados et al.(2013)Tsamados, Feltham, and
Wilchinsky</label><mixed-citation>Tsamados, M., Feltham, D. L., and Wilchinsky, A. V.: Impact of a new
anisotropic rheology on simulations of Arctic sea ice, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 118, 91–107, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC007990" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JC007990</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx63"><label>Ungermann et al.(2017)Ungermann, Tremblay, Martin, and
Losch</label><mixed-citation>Ungermann, M., Tremblay, L. B., Martin, T., and Losch, M.: Impact of the
Ice Strength Formulation on the Performance of a Sea Ice
Thickness Distribution Model in the Arctic, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
122, 2090–2107, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012128" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JC012128</ext-link>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx64"><label>Verruijt(2018)</label><mixed-citation>Verruijt, A.: An Introduction to Soil Mechanics, Theory and
Applications of Transport in Porous Media, Springer International
Publishing, available at: <uri>http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319611846</uri>
(last access: 4 April 2019), 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx65"><label>Walter and Overland(1993)</label><mixed-citation>Walter, B. A. and Overland, J. E.: The response of lead patterns in the
Beaufort Sea to storm-scale wind forcing, Ann. Glaciol., 17,
219–226, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/S0260305500012878" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/S0260305500012878</ext-link>,
1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx66"><label>Wang(2007)</label><mixed-citation>Wang, K.: Observing the yield curve of compacted pack ice, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 112, C05015, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003610" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JC003610</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx67"><label>Wang et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>Wang, K., Leppäranta, M., and Kõuts, T.: A study of sea ice dynamic
events in a small bay, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 45, 83–94,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2006.02.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coldregions.2006.02.002</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx68"><label>Wang et al.(2016)Wang, Danilov, Jung, Kaleschke, and
Wernecke</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Q., Danilov, S., Jung, T., Kaleschke, L., and Wernecke, A.: Sea ice
leads in the Arctic Ocean: Model assessment, interannual variability
and trends, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 7019–7027, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068696" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL068696</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx69"><label>Weiss et al.(2007)Weiss, Schulson, and Stern</label><mixed-citation>Weiss, J., Schulson, E. M., and Stern, H. L.: Sea ice rheology from in-situ,
satellite and laboratory observations: Fracture and friction, Earth
Planet. Sc. Lett., 255, 1–8, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.11.033" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.epsl.2006.11.033</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx70"><label>Wilchinsky and Feltham(2006)</label><mixed-citation>Wilchinsky, A. V. and Feltham, D. L.: Anisotropic model for granulated sea
ice
dynamics, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 54, 1147–1185,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2005.12.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jmps.2005.12.006</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx71"><label>Wilchinsky and Feltham(2011)</label><mixed-citation>Wilchinsky, A. V. and Feltham, D. L.: Modeling Coulombic failure of sea ice
with leads, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 116, C08040, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007071" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JC007071</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx72"><label>Wilchinsky and Feltham(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Wilchinsky, A. V. and Feltham, D. L.: Rheology of Discrete Failure
Regimes of Anisotropic Sea Ice, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 42,
1065–1082, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-11-0178.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JPO-D-11-0178.1</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx73"><label>Wilchinsky et al.(2010)Wilchinsky, Feltham, and
Hopkins</label><mixed-citation>Wilchinsky, A. V., Feltham, D. L., and Hopkins, M. A.: Effect of shear
rupture on aggregate scale formation in sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
115, C10002, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC006043" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JC006043</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx74"><label>Wilchinsky et al.(2011)Wilchinsky, Feltham, and
Hopkins</label><mixed-citation>Wilchinsky, A. V., Feltham, D. L., and Hopkins, M. A.: Modelling the
reorientation of sea-ice faults as the wind changes direction, Ann.
Glaciol., 52, 83–90, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756411795931831" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756411795931831</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx75"><label>Zhang and Hibler(1997)</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, J. and Hibler, W. D.: On an efficient numerical method for modeling
sea ice dynamics, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 102, 8691–8702,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JC03744" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/96JC03744</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx76"><label>Zhang and Rothrock(2005)</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, J. and Rothrock, D. A.: Effect of sea ice rheology in numerical
investigations of climate, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 110, C08014,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002599" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JC002599</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Simulating intersection angles between conjugate faults in sea ice with different viscous–plastic rheologies</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Recent high-resolution pan-Arctic sea ice simulations show
fracture patterns (linear kinematic features or LKFs) that are typical of
granular materials but with wider fracture angles than those observed in
high-resolution satellite images. Motivated by this, ice fracture is
investigated in a simple uni-axial loading test using two different
viscous–plastic (VP) rheologies: one with an elliptical yield curve and a
normal flow rule and one with a Coulombic yield curve and a normal flow rule
that applies only to the elliptical cap. With the standard VP rheology, it is
not possible to simulate fracture angles smaller than 30°. Further,
the standard VP model is not consistent with the behavior of granular
material such as sea ice because (1) the fracture angle increases with ice
shear strength; (2) the divergence along the fracture lines (or LKFs) is
uniquely defined by the shear strength of the material with divergence for
high shear strength and convergent with low shear strength; (3) the angle of
fracture depends on the confining pressure with more convergence as the
confining pressure increases. This behavior of the VP model is connected to
the convexity of the yield curve together with use of a normal flow rule. In
the Coulombic model, the angle of fracture is smaller (<i>θ</i> = 23°)
and grossly consistent with observations. The solution, however, is unstable
when the compressive stress is too large because of non-differentiable
corners between the straight limbs of the Coulombic yield curve and the
elliptical cap. The results suggest that, although at first sight the large-scale patterns of LKFs simulated with a VP sea ice model appear to be
realistic, the elliptical yield curve with a normal flow rule is not
consistent with the notion of sea ice as a pressure-sensitive and dilatant
granular material.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Aksenov and Hibler(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Aksenov, Y. and Hibler, W. D.: Failure Propagation Effects in an
Anisotropic Sea Ice Dynamics Model, in: IUTAM Symposium on
Scaling Laws in Ice Mechanics and Ice Dynamics, edited by:
Dempsey, J. P. and Shen, H. H., Solid Mechanics and Its Applications,
363–372, UTAM Symposium, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA, 13–16 June 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Babić et al.(1990)Babić, Shen, and Shen</label><mixed-citation>
Babić, M., Shen, H. H., and Shen, H. T.: The stress tensor in granular
shear
flows of uniform, deformable disks at high solids concentrations, J.
Fluid Mech., 219, 81–118, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112090002877" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112090002877</a>,
1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Balendran and Nemat-Nasser(1993)</label><mixed-citation>
Balendran, B. and Nemat-Nasser, S.: Double sliding model for cyclic
deformation of granular materials, including dilatancy effects, J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, 41, 573–612, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(93)90049-L" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(93)90049-L</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Bouchat and Tremblay(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Bouchat, A. and Tremblay, B.: Energy dissipation in viscous-plastic sea-ice
models, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 119, 976–994,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JC009436" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JC009436</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Bouchat and Tremblay(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Bouchat, A. and Tremblay, B.: Using sea-ice deformation fields to constrain
the mechanical strength parameters of geophysical sea ice, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 122, 5802–5825, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013020</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Bröhan and Kaleschke(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Bröhan, D. and Kaleschke, L.: A Nine-Year Climatology of Arctic
Sea
Ice Lead Orientation and Frequency from AMSR-E, Remote Sensing,
6, 1451–1475, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6021451" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6021451</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Coon et al.(2007)Coon, Kwok, Levy, Pruis, Schreyer, and
Sulsky</label><mixed-citation>
Coon, M., Kwok, R., Levy, G., Pruis, M., Schreyer, H., and Sulsky, D.: Arctic
Ice Dynamics Joint Experiment (AIDJEX) assumptions revisited and
found inadequate, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 112, C11S90,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003393" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003393</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Coon et al.(1974)Coon, Maykut, Pritchard, Rothrock, and
Thorndike</label><mixed-citation>
Coon, M. D., Maykut, A., G., Pritchard, R. S., Rothrock, D. A., and
Thorndike,
A. S.: Modeling The Pack Ice as an Elastic-Plastic Material,
AIDJEX Bulletin, 24, 1–106, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Cox and Richter-Menge(1985)</label><mixed-citation>
Cox, G. F. N. and Richter-Menge, J. A.: Tensile Strength of Multi-Year
Pressure Ridge Sea Ice Samples, J. Energ. Resour.-ASME, 107,
375–380, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3231204" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3231204</a>, 1985.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Dansereau et al.(2016)Dansereau, Weiss, Saramito, and
Lattes</label><mixed-citation>
Dansereau, V., Weiss, J., Saramito, P., and Lattes, P.: A Maxwell
elasto-brittle rheology for sea ice modelling, The Cryosphere, 10,
1339–1359, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1339-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1339-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Dansereau et al.(2017)Dansereau, Démery, Berthier, Weiss, and
Ponson</label><mixed-citation>
Dansereau, V., Démery, V., Berthier, E., Weiss, J., and Ponson, L.: Fault
orientation in damage failure under compression, arXiv:1712.08530 [cond-mat,
physics:physics], available at: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.08530" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.08530</a> (last access: 4 April 2019), 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Dempsey et al.(2012)Dempsey, Xie, Adamson, and
Farmer</label><mixed-citation>
Dempsey, J. P., Xie, Y., Adamson, R. M., and Farmer, D. M.: Fracture of a
ridged multi-year Arctic sea ice floe, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.,
76–77, 63–68, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2011.09.012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2011.09.012</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Dethloff et al.(2016)Dethloff, Rex, and
Shupe</label><mixed-citation>
Dethloff, K., Rex, M., and Shupe, M.: Multidisciplinary drifting
Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC), EGU General
Assembly Conference Abstracts, 18, available at:
<a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016EGUGA..18.3064D/abstract" target="_blank">https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016EGUGA..18.3064D/abstract</a> (last
access: 4 April 2019), 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Dumont et al.(2009)Dumont, Gratton, and
Arbetter</label><mixed-citation>
Dumont, D., Gratton, Y., and Arbetter, T. E.: Modeling the Dynamics of the
North Water Polynya Ice Bridge, J. Phys. Oceanogr.,
39, 1448–1461, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JPO3965.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JPO3965.1</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Erlingsson(1988)</label><mixed-citation>
Erlingsson, B.: Two-dimensional deformation patterns in sea ice, J.
Glaciol., 34, 301–308, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Feltham(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Feltham, D. L.: Sea Ice Rheology, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 40,
91–112, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.40.111406.102151" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.40.111406.102151</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Girard et al.(2009)Girard, Weiss, Molines, Barnier, and
Bouillon</label><mixed-citation>
Girard, L., Weiss, J., Molines, J. M., Barnier, B., and Bouillon, S.:
Evaluation of high-resolution sea ice models on the basis of statistical and
scaling properties of Arctic sea ice drift and deformation, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 114, C08015, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005182" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005182</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Girard et al.(2011)Girard, Bouillon, Weiss, Amitrano, Fichefet, and
Legat</label><mixed-citation>
Girard, L., Bouillon, S., Weiss, J., Amitrano, D., Fichefet, T., and Legat,
V.:
A new modeling framework for sea-ice mechanics based on elasto-brittle
rheology, Ann. Glaciol., 52, 123–132,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756411795931499" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/172756411795931499</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Heorton et al.(2018)Heorton, Feltham, and
Tsamados</label><mixed-citation>
Heorton, H. D. B. S., Feltham, D. L., and Tsamados, M.: Stress and
deformation
characteristics of sea ice in a high-resolution, anisotropic sea ice model,
Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 376, 20170349, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0349" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0349</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Herman(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Herman, A.: Discrete-Element bonded-particle Sea Ice model DESIgn, version
1.3a – model description and implementation, Geosci. Model Dev., 9,
1219–1241, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1219-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1219-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Hibler(1977)</label><mixed-citation>
Hibler, W. D.: A viscous sea ice law as a stochastic average of plasticity,
J. Geophys. Res., 82, 3932–3938, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC082i027p03932" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JC082i027p03932</a>, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Hibler(1979)</label><mixed-citation>
Hibler, W. D.: A Dynamic Thermodynamic Sea Ice Model, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 9, 815–846,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1979)009&lt;0815:ADTSIM&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1979)009&lt;0815:ADTSIM&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Hibler and Schulson(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Hibler, W. D. and Schulson, E. M.: On modeling sea-ice fracture and flow in
numerical investigations of climate, Ann. Glaciol., 25, 26–32,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/S0260305500190019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/S0260305500190019</a>,
1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Hibler and Schulson(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Hibler, W. D. and Schulson, E. M.: On modeling the anisotropic failure and
flow of flawed sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 105, 17105–17120,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC900045" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC900045</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Hibler et al.(2006)Hibler, Hutchings, and Ip</label><mixed-citation>
Hibler, W. D., Hutchings, J. K., and Ip, C. F.: sea-ice arching and multiple
flow States of Arctic pack ice, Ann. Glaciol., 44, 339–344,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756406781811448" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/172756406781811448</a>,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Hundsdorfer et al.(1995)Hundsdorfer, Koren, vanLoon, and
Verwer</label><mixed-citation>
Hundsdorfer, W., Koren, B., vanLoon, M., and Verwer, J. G.: A Positive
Finite-Difference Advection Scheme, J. Comput. Phys.,
117, 35–46, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1995.1042" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1995.1042</a>,
1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Hunke(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Hunke, E. C.: Viscous–Plastic Sea Ice Dynamics with the EVP
Model: Linearization Issues, J. Comput. Phys., 170,
18–38, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2001.6710" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2001.6710</a>,
2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Hunke and Dukowicz(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Hunke, E. C. and Dukowicz, J. K.: An Elastic–Viscous–Plastic Model
for Sea Ice Dynamics, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1849–1867,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1849:AEVPMF&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1849:AEVPMF&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Hutchings et al.(2004)Hutchings, Jasak, and
Laxon</label><mixed-citation>
Hutchings, J. K., Jasak, H., and Laxon, S. W.: A strength implicit correction
scheme for the viscous-plastic sea ice model, Ocean Model., 7, 111–133,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1463-5003(03)00040-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1463-5003(03)00040-4</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Hutchings et al.(2005)Hutchings, Heil, and
Hibler</label><mixed-citation>
Hutchings, J. K., Heil, P., and Hibler, W. D.: Modeling Linear Kinematic
Features in Sea Ice, Mon. Weather Rev., 133, 3481–3497,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3045.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3045.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Hutter and Rajagopal(1994)</label><mixed-citation>
Hutter, K. and Rajagopal, K. R.: On flows of granular materials, Continuum
Mech. Therm., 6, 81–139, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01140894" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01140894</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Hutter et al.(2018)Hutter, Martin, and
Dimitris</label><mixed-citation>
Hutter, N., Martin, L., and Dimitris, M.: Scaling Properties of Arctic
Sea Ice Deformation in a High-Resolution Viscous-Plastic
Sea Ice Model and in Satellite Observations, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 123, 672–687, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013119" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013119</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Hutter et al.(2019)Hutter, Zampieri, and
Losch</label><mixed-citation>
Hutter, N., Zampieri, L., and Losch, M.: Leads and ridges in Arctic sea ice
from RGPS data and a new tracking algorithm, The Cryosphere, 13, 627–645,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-627-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-627-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Ip et al.(1991)Ip, Hibler, and Flato</label><mixed-citation>
Ip, C. F., Hibler, W. D., and Flato, G. M.: On the effect of rheology on
seasonal sea-ice simulations, Ann. Glaciol., 15, 17–25, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Kwok(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Kwok, R.: Deformation of the Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Cover between
November 1996 and April 1997: A Qualitative Survey, in: IUTAM
Symposium on Scaling Laws in Ice Mechanics and Ice Dynamics,
edited by: Dempsey, J. P. and Shen, H. H., no. 94 in Solid Mechanics and
Its Applications, Springer Netherlands, 315–322,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9735-7_26" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9735-7_26</a>,
2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>Lemieux and Tremblay(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Lemieux, J.-F. and Tremblay, B.: Numerical convergence of viscous-plastic sea
ice models, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 114, C05009, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005017</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Lemieux et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Lemieux, J.-F., Tremblay, B., Sedláček, J., Tupper, P., Thomas, S.,
Huard,
D., and Auclair, J.-P.: Improving the numerical convergence of
viscous-plastic sea ice models with the Jacobian-free Newton–Krylov
method, J. Comput. Phys., 229, 2840–2852,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.12.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.12.011</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>Lindsay and Rothrock(1995)</label><mixed-citation>
Lindsay, R. W. and Rothrock, D. A.: Arctic sea ice leads from advanced very
high resolution radiometer images, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
100, 4533–4544, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC02393" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC02393</a>,
1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>Linow and Dierking(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Linow, S. and Dierking, W.: Object-Based Detection of Linear
Kinematic Features in Sea Ice, Remote Sensing, 9, 493,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9050493" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9050493</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>Losch et al.(2010)Losch, Menemenlis, Campin, Heimbach, and
Hill</label><mixed-citation>
Losch, M., Menemenlis, D., Campin, J.-M., Heimbach, P., and Hill, C.: On the
formulation of sea-ice models. Part 1: Effects of different solver
implementations and parameterizations, Ocean Model., 33, 129–144,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.12.008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.12.008</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>Marko and Thomson(1977)</label><mixed-citation>
Marko, J. R. and Thomson, R. E.: Rectilinear leads and internal motions in
the ice pack of the western Arctic Ocean, J. Geophys. Res., 82, 979–987,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC082i006p00979" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JC082i006p00979</a>, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>Marsan et al.(2012)Marsan, Weiss, Larose, and
Métaxian</label><mixed-citation>
Marsan, D., Weiss, J., Larose, E., and Métaxian, J.-P.: Sea-ice thickness
measurement based on the dispersion of ice swell, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 131,
80–91, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3662051" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3662051</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>Marshall et al.(1997)Marshall, Adcroft, Hill, Perelman, and
Heisey</label><mixed-citation>
Marshall, J., Adcroft, A., Hill, C., Perelman, L., and Heisey, C.: A
finite-volume, incompressible Navier Stokes model for studies of the
ocean on parallel computers, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 102,
5753–5766, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JC02775" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/96JC02775</a>,
1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>Menge and Jones(1993)</label><mixed-citation>
Menge, J. A. R. and Jones, K. F.: The tensile strength of first-year sea ice,
J. Glaciol., 39, 609–618, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/S0022143000016506" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/S0022143000016506</a>,
1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>Miller et al.(2005)Miller, Laxon, and
Feltham</label><mixed-citation>
Miller, P. A., Laxon, S. W., and Feltham, D. L.: Improving the spatial
distribution of modeled Arctic sea ice thickness, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, L18503, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023622" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023622</a>,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>Overland et al.(1998)Overland, McNutt, Salo, Groves, and
Li</label><mixed-citation>
Overland, J. E., McNutt, S. L., Salo, S., Groves, J., and Li, S.: Arctic sea
ice as a granular plastic, J. Geophys. Res., 103,
21845–21868,
1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>Popov(1976)</label><mixed-citation>
Popov, E. P.: Mechanics of Materials, 2nd edn., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., USA, 1976.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>Pritchard(1975)</label><mixed-citation>
Pritchard, R. S.: An Elastic-Plastic Constitutive Law for Sea
Ice, J. Appl. Mech., 42, 379–384, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3423585" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3423585</a>, 1975.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>Pritchard(1988)</label><mixed-citation>
Pritchard, R. S.: Mathematical characteristics of sea ice dynamics models,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 93, 15609–15618,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC093iC12p15609" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JC093iC12p15609</a>,
1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>Rampal et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Rampal, P., Bouillon, S., Ólason, E., and Morlighem, M.: neXtSIM: a new
Lagrangian sea ice model, The Cryosphere, 10, 1055–1073,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1055-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1055-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>Rothrock(1975)</label><mixed-citation>
Rothrock, D. A.: The steady drift of an incompressible Arctic ice cover,
J. Geophys. Res., 80, 387–397, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC080i003p00387" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JC080i003p00387</a>,
1975.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>Rothrock and Thorndike(1984)</label><mixed-citation>
Rothrock, D. A. and Thorndike, A. S.: Measuring the sea ice floe size
distribution, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 89, 6477–6486,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC089iC04p06477" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JC089iC04p06477</a>,
1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>Schmidt et al.(2014)Schmidt, Kelley, Nazarenko, Ruedy, Russell,
Aleinov, Bauer, Bauer, Bhat, Bleck, Canuto, Chen, Cheng, Clune, Genio,
Fainchtein, Faluvegi, Hansen, Healy, Kiang, Koch, Lacis, LeGrande, Lerner,
Lo, Matthews, Menon, Miller, Oinas, Oloso, Perlwitz, Puma, Putman, Rind,
Romanou, Sato, Shindell, Sun, Syed, Tausnev, Tsigaridis, Unger, Voulgarakis,
Yao, and Zhang</label><mixed-citation>
Schmidt, G. A., Kelley, M., Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R., Russell, G. L.,
Aleinov,
I., Bauer, M., Bauer, S. E., Bhat, M. K., Bleck, R., Canuto, V., Chen, Y.-H.,
Cheng, Y., Clune, T. L., Genio, A. D., Fainchtein, R. d., Faluvegi, G.,
Hansen, J. E., Healy, R. J., Kiang, N. Y., Koch, D., Lacis, A. A., LeGrande,
A. N., Lerner, J., Lo, K. K., Matthews, E. E., Menon, S., Miller, R. L.,
Oinas, V., Oloso, A. O., Perlwitz, J. P., Puma, M. J., Putman, W. M., Rind,
D., Romanou, A., Sato, M., Shindell, D. T., Sun, S., Syed, R. A., Tausnev,
N., Tsigaridis, K., Unger, N., Voulgarakis, A., Yao, M.-S., and Zhang, J.:
Configuration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the
CMIP5 archive, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 6, 141–184,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000265" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000265</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>Schreyer et al.(2006)Schreyer, Sulsky, Munday, Coon, and
Kwok</label><mixed-citation>
Schreyer, H. L., Sulsky, D. L., Munday, L. B., Coon, M. D., and Kwok, R.:
Elastic-decohesive constitutive model for sea ice, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 111, C11S26, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003334" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003334</a>,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>Schulson(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Schulson, E. M.: Compressive shear faults within arctic sea ice: Fracture
on scales large and small, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 109, C07016,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JC002108" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JC002108</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>Sirven and Tremblay(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Sirven, J. and Tremblay, B.: Analytical Study of an Isotropic
Viscoplastic Sea Ice Model in Idealized Configurations, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 45, 331–354, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-13-0109.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-13-0109.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>Spreen et al.(2017)Spreen, Kwok, Menemenlis, and
Nguyen</label><mixed-citation>
Spreen, G., Kwok, R., Menemenlis, D., and Nguyen, A. T.: Sea-ice deformation
in a coupled ocean–sea-ice model and in satellite remote sensing data, The
Cryosphere, 11, 1553–1573, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1553-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1553-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>Stern et al.(1995)Stern, Rothrock, and Kwok</label><mixed-citation>
Stern, H. L., Rothrock, D. A., and Kwok, R.: Open water production in
Arctic
sea ice: Satellite measurements and model parameterizations, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 100, 20601–20612, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JC02306" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95JC02306</a>,
1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>Stroeve et al.(2014)Stroeve, Barrett, Serreze, and
Schweiger</label><mixed-citation>
Stroeve, J., Barrett, A., Serreze, M., and Schweiger, A.: Using records from
submarine, aircraft and satellites to evaluate climate model simulations of
Arctic sea ice thickness, The Cryosphere, 8, 1839–1854,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1839-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1839-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>Sulsky et al.(2007)Sulsky, Schreyer, Peterson, Kwok, and
Coon</label><mixed-citation>
Sulsky, D., Schreyer, H., Peterson, K., Kwok, R., and Coon, M.: Using the
material-point method to model sea ice dynamics, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 112, C02S90, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003329" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003329</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>Tremblay and Mysak(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Tremblay, L.-B. and Mysak, L. A.: Modeling Sea Ice as a Granular
Material, Including the Dilatancy Effect, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 27, 2342–2360,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;2342:MSIAAG&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;2342:MSIAAG&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>Tsamados et al.(2013)Tsamados, Feltham, and
Wilchinsky</label><mixed-citation>
Tsamados, M., Feltham, D. L., and Wilchinsky, A. V.: Impact of a new
anisotropic rheology on simulations of Arctic sea ice, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 118, 91–107, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC007990" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC007990</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>Ungermann et al.(2017)Ungermann, Tremblay, Martin, and
Losch</label><mixed-citation>
Ungermann, M., Tremblay, L. B., Martin, T., and Losch, M.: Impact of the
Ice Strength Formulation on the Performance of a Sea Ice
Thickness Distribution Model in the Arctic, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
122, 2090–2107, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012128" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012128</a>, 2017.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>Verruijt(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Verruijt, A.: An Introduction to Soil Mechanics, Theory and
Applications of Transport in Porous Media, Springer International
Publishing, available at: <a href="http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319611846" target="_blank">http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319611846</a>
(last access: 4 April 2019), 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>Walter and Overland(1993)</label><mixed-citation>
Walter, B. A. and Overland, J. E.: The response of lead patterns in the
Beaufort Sea to storm-scale wind forcing, Ann. Glaciol., 17,
219–226, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/S0260305500012878" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/S0260305500012878</a>,
1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>Wang(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, K.: Observing the yield curve of compacted pack ice, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 112, C05015, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003610" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003610</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>Wang et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, K., Leppäranta, M., and Kõuts, T.: A study of sea ice dynamic
events in a small bay, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 45, 83–94,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2006.02.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2006.02.002</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>Wang et al.(2016)Wang, Danilov, Jung, Kaleschke, and
Wernecke</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Q., Danilov, S., Jung, T., Kaleschke, L., and Wernecke, A.: Sea ice
leads in the Arctic Ocean: Model assessment, interannual variability
and trends, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 7019–7027, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068696" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068696</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>Weiss et al.(2007)Weiss, Schulson, and Stern</label><mixed-citation>
Weiss, J., Schulson, E. M., and Stern, H. L.: Sea ice rheology from in-situ,
satellite and laboratory observations: Fracture and friction, Earth
Planet. Sc. Lett., 255, 1–8, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.11.033" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.11.033</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>Wilchinsky and Feltham(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Wilchinsky, A. V. and Feltham, D. L.: Anisotropic model for granulated sea
ice
dynamics, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 54, 1147–1185,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2005.12.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2005.12.006</a>,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>Wilchinsky and Feltham(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Wilchinsky, A. V. and Feltham, D. L.: Modeling Coulombic failure of sea ice
with leads, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 116, C08040, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007071" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007071</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>Wilchinsky and Feltham(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Wilchinsky, A. V. and Feltham, D. L.: Rheology of Discrete Failure
Regimes of Anisotropic Sea Ice, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 42,
1065–1082, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-11-0178.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-11-0178.1</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>Wilchinsky et al.(2010)Wilchinsky, Feltham, and
Hopkins</label><mixed-citation>
Wilchinsky, A. V., Feltham, D. L., and Hopkins, M. A.: Effect of shear
rupture on aggregate scale formation in sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
115, C10002, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC006043" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC006043</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>Wilchinsky et al.(2011)Wilchinsky, Feltham, and
Hopkins</label><mixed-citation>
Wilchinsky, A. V., Feltham, D. L., and Hopkins, M. A.: Modelling the
reorientation of sea-ice faults as the wind changes direction, Ann.
Glaciol., 52, 83–90, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756411795931831" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/172756411795931831</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>Zhang and Hibler(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, J. and Hibler, W. D.: On an efficient numerical method for modeling
sea ice dynamics, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 102, 8691–8702,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JC03744" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/96JC03744</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>Zhang and Rothrock(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, J. and Rothrock, D. A.: Effect of sea ice rheology in numerical
investigations of climate, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 110, C08014,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002599" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002599</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
