<?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">
  <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-13-1877-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Buoyant forces promote tidewater glacier iceberg calving through large basal
stress concentrations</article-title><alt-title>Buoyancy-induced basal stresses promote iceberg calving</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Buoyancy-induced basal stresses promote iceberg calving}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M. Trevers et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Trevers</surname><given-names>Matt</given-names></name>
          <email>matt.trevers@bristol.ac.uk</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Payne</surname><given-names>Antony J.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8825-8425</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Cornford</surname><given-names>Stephen L.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1844-274X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Moon</surname><given-names>Twila</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0968-7008</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, School of Geographical
Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1SS, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0449, US</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Matt Trevers (matt.trevers@bristol.ac.uk)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>11</day><month>July</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>7</issue>
      <fpage>1877</fpage><lpage>1887</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>28</day><month>September</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>7</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>20</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>20</day><month>June</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Matt Trevers 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/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019.html">This article is available from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e121">Iceberg calving parameterisations currently implemented in ice
sheet models do not reproduce the full observed range of calving behaviours.
For example, though buoyant forces at the ice front are known to trigger
full-depth calving events on major Greenland outlet glaciers, a multi-stage
iceberg calving event at Jakobshavn Isbræ is unexplained by existing
models. To explain this and similar events, we propose a notch-triggered
rotation mechanism, whereby a relatively small subaerial calving event
triggers a larger full-depth calving event due to the abrupt increase in
buoyant load and the associated stresses generated at the ice–bed interface.
We investigate the notch-triggered rotation mechanism by applying a
geometric perturbation to the subaerial section of the calving front in a
diagnostic flow-line model of an idealised glacier snout, using the
full-Stokes, finite element method code Elmer/Ice. Different sliding laws
and water pressure boundary conditions are applied at the ice–bed interface.
Water pressure has a big influence on the likelihood of calving, and stress
concentrations large enough to open crevasses were generated in basal ice.
Significantly, the location of stress concentrations produced calving events
of approximately the size observed, providing support for future application
of the notch-triggered rotation mechanism in ice-sheet models.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e133">Iceberg calving from marine-terminating glaciers is an important component
of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance. Calving accounted for a third of
total mass loss between 2009 and 2012 (Enderlin et al., 2014). Moreover,
calving is an important control on the flow dynamics of tidewater glaciers,
reducing the backstress in the glacier snout region and leading to flow
acceleration and dynamic thinning (Thomas, 2004). The acceleration of
Jakobshavn Isbræ (JI, Sermeq Kujalleq in Greenlandic) by a factor of 4
since 1995, for example, is linked with its continued calving retreat
following the disintegration of its ice shelf (Joughin et al., 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e136">Current models of iceberg calving fail to capture the full range of observed
processes, and as such the parameterisations applied within ice sheet models
are limited. Van der Veen (1996) proposed the empirical
height-above-flotation criterion, whereby the glacier calves to a point
where its terminus is some fixed height above the flotation thickness.
Although this method successfully reproduced advance and retreat behaviour
for Columbia Glacier (Vieli et al., 2001) and Helheim Glacier (Nick et al.,
2009), a major shortcoming was the inability for ice to thin below the
flotation thickness and form an ice tongue. A more physically based approach
(Benn et al., 2007a, b) assumed that crevasses penetrating to the waterline
penetrate through the full glacier thickness. This simple theory has been
used in many recent modelling studies (e.g. Otero et al., 2010; Nick et al.,
2013; Cook et al., 2014). However, since crevasse depths are calculated
based on the equilibrium between longitudinal stretching and ice overburden
pressure (Nye, 1957), calving in these models arises only as a result of ice
flow dynamics. The effect of localised processes such as meltwater
undercutting (Luckman et al., 2015), ice-cliff collapse (Bassis and
Walker, 2012) or of super-buoyancy upon near-terminus stresses is not
captured in these models.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e141">Proposed calving mechanism. <bold>(a)</bold> Lightly grounded terminus of a
tidewater glacier with approximate dimensions of, for example, Jakobshavn Isbræ.
<bold>(b)</bold> A weakness develops in the subaerial section of the front due to, for example, undercutting by a wave-cut notch at the waterline. <bold>(c)</bold> A small subaerial
calving event rapidly increases the buoyant load, causing the terminus to
tend to lift and rotate. Basal crevasses open and propagate rapidly upwards.
<bold>(d)</bold> Full-depth crevassing results in a large, bottom-out calving event. The
long-term calving rate is driven by the notch melt rate but is amplified by
an unconstrained factor.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1878?><p id="d1e163">Buoyant forces have been proposed as a driver of large calving events
observed at major Greenland Ice Sheet marine-terminating glaciers.
Full-depth, bottom-out calving events observed at Helheim Glacier resulted
from buoyant flexure of the glacier snout and the propagation of basal
crevasses (e.g. Murray et al., 2015). Wagner et al. (2016) also showed that
applying a buoyant force to an elastic beam model of a glacier resulted in
large basal tensile stresses, which were further amplified by the emergence
of a submarine protrusion of the calving face due to sea surface melting.
Buoyant forces may be at play in driving as yet unexplained calving styles.</p>
      <p id="d1e166">A multiple-iceberg calving event was observed at JI in August 2009 (Walter
et al., 2012) that is not fully explained by existing calving models, but
which we propose is tied to buoyant force changes over the course of the
multi-stage calving event. In this observation, the collapse of a subaerial
portion of the ice cliff was followed minutes later by a much larger,
full-depth, bottom-out calving event across the same section of the front.
We consider a mechanism to explain this event, whereby a substantial portion
of the snout becomes buoyant immediately following a small subaerial calving
event, which we term “notch-triggered rotation”. In this mechanism,
visualised in Fig. 1, the sudden increase in buoyant load causes the snout
to lift and rotate. The resultant basal tensile stresses initiate basal
crevassing, which rapidly propagates through the full glacier thickness.
This mechanism is similar to the “footloose” mechanism investigated by
Wagner et al. (2014) and earlier proposed by Scambos et al. (2005) for the
breakup of tabular icebergs. However, in this study we consider the very
short timescales arising from abrupt changes in the geometry and analyse
the viscous stresses originating at the ice–bed interface rather than the
elastic stresses resulting purely from bending.</p>
      <p id="d1e169">Using a diagnostic numerical glacier model, we investigate whether
notch-triggered rotation is a plausible calving mechanism. With
sophisticated prognostic models, calving criteria can be tested by
application to real glacier geometries (e.g. Nick et al., 2010; Krug et al.,
2014) and the calving rate response to various environmental forcings can be
quantified (e.g. Cook et al., 2014; Todd and Christoffersen, 2014). Simpler diagnostic
models provide insight into iceberg calving mechanisms by resolving the
internal stresses under instantaneously imposed geometries (e.g. Hanson and
Hooke, 2000, 2003; O'Leary and Christofferson, 2013). Here we use a
diagnostic model that is able to quantify changes in the stress field
induced by geometrical perturbations of the ice front.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Model setup</title>
      <p id="d1e180">In this study we use a two-dimensional diagnostic flow-line model of an
idealised glacier snout to determine whether the magnitude of stresses
generated by the notch-triggered rotation mechanism is sufficient to result
in calving. The mechanisms of crevasse propagation through the ice thickness
are not examined. We apply the buoyant forcing in the model by cutting a
notch into the subaerial ice cliff to a length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the waterline to
the surface (Fig. 2). We use a triangular mesh with a mesh resolution at the
ice–bed interface of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m at the calving front increasing
linearly to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m at the rear of the domain. The ice flow
solution is calculated using the open source, full-Stokes, finite element
Elmer/Ice modelling software (Gagliardini et al., 2013).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e224">Example mesh and boundary conditions (not to scale). Mesh
resolution increases close to the calving front and basal boundaries.
Symbols: normal stress <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nn</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, shear stress
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Ice flow model</title>
      <?pagebreak page1879?><p id="d1e262">Elmer/Ice calculates velocity and stress profiles within the glacier by
solving the Stokes equations for an incompressible fluid (e.g. Gagliardini
et al., 2013):

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M6" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>1</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">g</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">g</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the velocity vector, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the Cauchy stress tensor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">918</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> the ice density, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">g</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,0,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.81</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> the
acceleration due to gravity, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the deviatoric stress tensor
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">I</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the isotropic
pressure <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tr</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the
identity matrix. The ice rheology is described using Glen's flow law, which
relates deviatoric stress to the strain rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" 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>
(Glen, 1958):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M20" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</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:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><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:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e530">The effective viscosity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is defined as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M22" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</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:msup><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup><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">e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><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">e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the square of the second invariant of
the strain rate tensor and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the commonly used exponent in Glen's
flow law. The Arrhenius factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is expressed as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M26" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><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>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a constant, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the creep activation energy, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the universal gas
constant and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the temperature of ice relative to the pressure melting
point (Cuffey and Patterson, 2010, p. 64). For symbols and values used in
this study, see Table 1. The temperature of glacier ice is set at a constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e720">Symbols and values of physical and numerical constants and
parameters used in this study.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Symbol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Value</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Units</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Arrhenius factor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Coulomb sliding coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.169</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">21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Arrhenius prefactor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1916</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Weertman friction coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Maximum value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Water depth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">900</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">m</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Effective principal stress</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">EPS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Acceleration due to gravity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">g</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">9.81</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Terminus thickness</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">980</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">m</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Identity matrix</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Critical notch length</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">m</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Notch length</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">m</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Weertman sliding exponent</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1/3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Effective pressure</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Glen's flow law exponent</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pressure</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Water pressure</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Post-peak exponent</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Creep activation energy</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">139</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">kJ mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Universal gas constant</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.314</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">J K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pressure-adjusted temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">K</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Velocity vector</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Basal sliding velocity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Glacier surface gradient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2–5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Strain rate tensor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Square of second invariant of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><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">e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Effective viscosity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa s</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ice density</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">918</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Water density</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1028</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cauchy stress tensor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Largest principal Cauchy stress</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" 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></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Deviatoric stress tensor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Basal shear stress</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Pa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Boundary conditions</title>
      <p id="d1e1744">We use typical boundary conditions for a tidewater glacier. Along the upper
surface, as well as the rear and lower surfaces delineating the notch when
one is present or the subaerial portion of the ice front when not present,
we ignore atmospheric pressure and apply a stress-free boundary condition:

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M89" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>6</mml:mtext></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">nn</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E7"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>7</mml:mtext></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">nt</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where subscripts n and t refer to normal and tangential directions.
Hydrostatic pressure is applied at the ice front below the waterline:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>8</label><mml:math id="M90" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">g</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the water pressure, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1028</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> the
ice density and the vertical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis is centred at the waterline.   At the rear
boundary 10 km upstream, lithostatic pressure is applied along with an
inflow velocity of 5000 m a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, chosen to roughly match the flow speed
of JI at a similar distance from the calving front (Vieli and Nick, 2011).</p>
      <p id="d1e1873">At the basal boundary, a choice of sliding laws was available for grounded
ice. The Weertman law (Weertman, 1957) commonly used in glacier modelling
applications (e.g. Krug et al., 2014; Cornford et al., 2015) takes the
following form:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><label>9</label><mml:math id="M96" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the basal shear stress, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the Weertman friction
coefficient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the basal sliding velocity and sliding exponent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> range from 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Pa m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which
includes the more realistic range of modelled values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Pa m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> determined from
surface velocity observations around Greenland outlet glaciers (Lee et al., 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e2075">Alternatively, a Coulomb-limited sliding law (Schoof, 2005; Gagliardini et
al., 2007) can be applied (referred to as the “Schoof law” from here onwards). This law accounts for the effect of water pressure through an effective
pressure term <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nn</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Basal shear stress is expressed as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E10" content-type="numbered"><label>10</label><mml:math id="M111" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mstyle scriptlevel="+1"><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:msup><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E11" content-type="numbered"><label>11</label><mml:math id="M112" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          and
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E12" content-type="numbered"><label>12</label><mml:math id="M113" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e2251"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum value of  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the post-peak exponent, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the value of the sliding coefficient
in the absence of cavitation and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the flow law exponent. As in previous
studies (e.g. Nick et al., 2010; Krug et al., 2014), a free hydrological
connection is assumed between the subglacial drainage system and the sea, so
hydrostatic water pressure is applied at the ice–bed interface.</p>
      <p id="d1e2318">The contact problem (Durand et al., 2009) is solved at the ice–bed interface
to determine where ice is grounded or floating. In this implementation,
nodes touching the bedrock where the normal stress exerted by the ice is
greater than the seawater pressure (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nn</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are considered grounded and have zero velocity normal to the bed,
while nodes that have separated from the bedrock or where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nn</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are considered floating and have no velocity conditions
imposed. The viscous flow relation (Eq. 4), friction law (Eqs. 8 or 9) and
the solution-dependent grounding line position are solved during the
non-linear iterations of the Stokes equations. Five steady-state loops of
the non-linear iterations are performed, during which the glacier geometry
is held fixed but the grounding line position is updated according to the
pressure at the ice–bed interface. Beyond five iterations, further changes
to the stress field are insignificant. The model is initialised with the
glacier fully grounded along its entire length.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1880?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Stress analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e2381">As in other studies (e.g. Nick et al., 2010; Todd et al., 2014), we assess
the likelihood of crevasse opening from the magnitude of the resulting
stress distribution. The largest principal Cauchy stress <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" 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> is
coordinate system invariant, accounting for crevasse opening in any
direction:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E13" content-type="numbered"><label>13</label><mml:math id="M122" display="block"><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:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e2475">Because the overburden pressure beneath a kilometre-thick column of ice is
on the order of 10 MPa, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" 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> is negative almost everywhere at
depth. Following Benn et al. (2017), we superpose the hydrostatic water
pressure to define the effective principal stress (EPS):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E14" content-type="numbered"><label>14</label><mml:math id="M124" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EPS</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:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e2512">The hydrostatic pressure is similar in magnitude to the ice overburden
pressure at the glacier bed.</p>
      <p id="d1e2515">In previous modelling studies (e.g. Otero et al., 2010; Cook et al., 2012),
crevasses were assumed to exist in regions of the glacier where the stress
is tensile (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), following the method proposed by Nye (1957). Schulson (2001) suggests a fracture strength of 0.8 MPa for
polycrystalline ice at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C with a grain size of 10 mm, with
decreasing strength for increasing grain size. In this study we do not
calculate crevasse penetration heights; therefore, we do not apply a
crevassing or calving criterion. Instead, we infer the existence of
crevasses where the EPS is of a similar magnitude to these estimates
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> MPa).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1881?><sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Model results</title>
      <p id="d1e2568">Experiments were run for a glacier with water depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">900</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m,
terminus thickness <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">980</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, surface slope <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.371</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Pa m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, with notches
cut to varying lengths. For these experiments, full hydrostatic pressure
(Eq. 7) was applied along the basal boundary. Figure 4 shows EPS mapped for
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m case, with the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m case mapped in Fig. 3 for
comparison. Basal stresses are plotted for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m (Fig. 5).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2748">Effective principal stress map of the terminus of the glacier
before the cutting of a notch, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">900</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">980</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.623</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Pa m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The black contour denotes EPS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 MPa; white contours are
spaced at 0.25 MPa intervals.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2864">Notch cutting caused basal ice to become ungrounded between approximately
190 and 640 m upstream of the ice front for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m (Fig. 4).
Prominent stress concentrations associated with ungrounding and regrounding
also appeared at the basal boundary, which were not present in the
unperturbed case. The tensile stress peak centred approximately 640 m
upstream of the ice front resulted from separation of basal ice from the
bedrock, as the buoyant snout tended to lift. The abrupt change in basal
shear stress across the grounding zone, where ice that has separated from
the bedrock accelerates, gave rise to this stress peak. Further
notch-cutting caused this stress peak to shift upstream and increase in
magnitude. The substantial growth in concentrated stress at this location to
approximately 1.4 MPa would likely result in crevasse opening.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2885">Effective principal stress map of the terminus of the glacier with
a notch cut to a length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, with contours at 0.1 MPa spacing.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">900</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">980</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.623</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Pa m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Ungrounding occurred between
approximately 190 and 640 m. The black contour denotes EPS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 MPa;
white contours are spaced at 0.25 MPa intervals.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3016">The region of compressive stress centred approximately 190 m upstream of the
ice front arose from ice regrounding on the bedrock downstream of the
grounding line, due to the backstress applied on the ice front by
hydrostatic pressure. An imbalance between the hydrostatic and cryostatic
pressure normal to the terminus tends to warp the snout downwards (see Fig. S1 in the Supplement; Reeh, 1968), with the same effect seen at the start of prognostic model
runs by Benn et al. (2017). Experiments in which the hydrostatic pressure
from the pro-glacial water body was removed or the bedrock lowered
downstream of the grounding line, did not include this compressive stress
peak while still featuring the tensile stress peak, supporting our assertion
that the compressive stress concentration resulted from basal ice
regrounding.</p>
      <p id="d1e3019">Corresponding longitudinal velocity maps for the frontal region are shown in
Fig. S2 (unperturbed) and Fig. S3 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m). There is an
acceleration of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> following the notch cutting,
resulting from the reduced basal friction in the ungrounded region.</p>
      <p id="d1e3059">A critical notch length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was required before the glacier snout
became buoyant and the tensile stress peak appeared. A sensitivity study was
carried out to explore the relationship of this critical notch length to the
bed stickiness and the glacier surface slope (Fig. 6) and to determine how
this relationship affects the maximum basal stress (Fig. 7). Setting the
notch length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> resulted in a noisy maximum basal stress
signal so we instead set <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, which allows a coherent pattern to emerge.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e3115">Plots of basal effective principal stress for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, 80
and 100 m. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">900</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">980</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.623</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Pa m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The large basal stress
concentrations from Fig. 4 correspond to the peak and trough in the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m plot. Ungrounding occurred between approximately 250 and 575 m for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m and between approximately 190 and 640 m for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m. Note that for this setup, the critical notch length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e3302">Critical notch length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> plotted for a range of Weertman
coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and surface gradients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e3338">Basal EPS maximum plotted with the notch length equal to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m across a range of Weertman coefficients and surface
gradients.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f07.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3362">Ungrounding occurred even without a notch on glaciers with very slippery
beds for all surface slopes and at all values of the friction coefficient
for a 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> surface slope. For steeper surface slopes, the critical
notch length increased with bed stickiness before levelling off. For a given
value of the friction coefficient, the critical notch length also increased
with surface slope. Similarly, the maximum basal stress increased with both
friction coefficient and surface slope. For very<?pagebreak page1882?> slippery beds the maximum
stress was below the upper boundary of the tensile strength envelope, but
significantly it was above the critical stress for crevasse initiation
through the realistic range of friction coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Pa m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3428">These experiments reveal a complex picture of the conditions that favour
calving. An explanation for the relationship between the critical notch
length and bed stickiness does not readily present itself, and this effect
may warrant further investigation. The relationships of surface slope with
both the critical notch length and the maximum basal stress are more easily
explained. The terminus of a steeper sloped glacier is more strongly
grounded, requiring the removal of more ice to render it buoyant than would be required for a
more gently sloping glacier. The longer submarine foot and larger buoyant
forces that result then favour larger basal stresses (e.g. Wagner et al., 2016).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Water pressure dependency</title>
      <p id="d1e3436">Tidewater glaciers such as JI are subject to the influence of water pressure
where they meet the ocean; therefore, it is appropriate to examine the region
around the grounding line and calving front using a water pressure-dependent
sliding law. Since the large basal stresses were generated by the abrupt
change in basal shear stress across the grounding line, a sliding law in
which the basal shear stress reduces gradually as a function of effective
pressure would not be expected to produce such large stress concentrations.
To investigate the effects of water pressure upon the notch-triggered
rotation mechanism, experiments were conducted using the Schoof law (Eq. 9).
In all following experiments a similar setup as before was used, with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, a varying notch length and the sliding
coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.169</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">21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Pa<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which was chosen to
produce roughly similar velocity and basal shear stress as in the Weertman
law experiments. Experiments F0 and F100 were carried out with full
hydraulic connectivity at the ice–bed interface, and experiments Z0 and Z100
were carried out with zero hydraulic connectivity (i.e. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> everywhere). See Table 2
for details of parameters used in Schoof law experiments.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3526">Hydraulic connectivity along the ice–bed interface for experiments
using the Schoof law. Water pressure is 100 % of the full hydrostatic
pressure (Eq. 7) downstream of position <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
water pressure reduces linearly to 0 %.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <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="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Hydraulic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Experiment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">connectivity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">F0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Full</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10 000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">F100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Full</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10 000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Z0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Zero</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Z100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Zero</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Partial</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Partial</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3755">The resulting stress profiles for these experiments are highly dependent on
the basal water pressure. Experiments Z0 and Z100 (Fig. 8) exhibited stress
patterns very similar to those produced by the Weertman law experiments,
although the stress is compressive everywhere due to the exclusion of water
pressure, inhibiting any possibility of crevasses opening. However, with
full water pressure applied (F0 and F100, Fig. 9), there is a region of
large tensile stress that exists independent of any perturbation. Notch
cutting has minimal impact on the magnitude or location of this region.<?pagebreak page1883?> This
region of large stress exists because the basal shear stress in the frontal
region is small, since the effective pressure is zero; therefore, the basal
shear stress is increased upstream, and this upstream transferal of stress
occurs via a region of increased englacial tensile stress. The magnitude of
these stresses suggests an inherent instability for glaciers in such a
configuration when subject to full basal water pressure.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e3761">Comparison of basal stresses using the Coulomb sliding law with
water pressure inhibited at the ice–bed interface, before (Z0) and after
(Z100) cutting of a 100 m notch. Ungrounding occurred between approximately
200 and 380 m for F0, 16 and 510 m for F100 and between approximately
240 and 610 m for Z100. No ungrounding occurred for Z0.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3770">The assumption of perfect hydraulic connectivity, however, may not hold for
large distances upstream of the grounding line (Cuffey and Paterson, 2010,
p. 283). We therefore carried out additional experiments P0 and P100 (Fig. 10) to simulate limited hydraulic connectivity by linearly reducing the
water pressure at the ice–bed interface from full hydrostatic pressure at
the front to zero at the rear of the domain (Table 2), similar to Leguy et
al. (2014). Experiment P0 shows a region of large tensile stress, similar to
but smaller than those seen in experiments F0 and F100. The notch
perturbation in experiment P100 results in a stress peak similar to those
produced by the Weertman law which is significantly larger in magnitude than
the unperturbed stress peak.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e3775">Comparison of basal stresses using the Coulomb sliding law with
full water pressure at the ice–bed interface, before (F0) and after (F100)
cutting of a 100 m notch. Ungrounding occurred between approximately 200
and 380 m for F0 and between approximately 20  and 510 m for F100.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e3786">Comparison of basal stresses using the Coulomb sliding law with
partial hydraulic connectivity at the ice–bed interface, before (P0) and
after (P100) cutting of a 100 m notch. Ungrounding occurred between
approximately 160  and 640 m for P100 and not at all for P0.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/1877/2019/tc-13-1877-2019-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e3804">Our experiments show that perturbations to the ice front geometry can induce
large stress concentrations in basal ice. The magnitude and location of
these stress concentrations shows a strong dependency on the basal shear
stress. For a glacier snout already close to flotation, only a relatively
small perturbation was required to induce large stresses. This is in line
with the observed relationship between calving rate and water depth (Brown
et al., 1982).</p>
      <?pagebreak page1884?><p id="d1e3807">The large internal stress concentrations reported here are attributed to the
requirement to balance the abrupt decrease in basal shear stress across the
grounding line and are not associated with bending stresses. This
distinction is based on the following observations. Firstly, the region of
additional high stress is sharply focused at the glacier bed and is not
balanced by a region of compressive stress at the surface as would be
expected for a viscous bending moment (Mosbeux et al., 2019). Secondly, the
stress concentration is compressive where the ice regrounds further
downstream, whereas a bending stress at this location would also be tensile.
Finally, we have shown that the form and magnitude of stress is highly
dependent upon the choice of sliding law and application of basal water
pressure, which would be largely irrelevant for bending stresses.</p>
      <p id="d1e3810">The choice of diagnostic model for a calving study was criticised by Cook et
al. (2014) after their prognostic model showed much greater sensitivity to
atmospheric as opposed to oceanic forcing than diagnostic models (O'Leary
and Christoffersen, 2013), suggesting that this was due to the inability of
a diagnostic model to respond to stress perturbations through ice
deformation. However, over the short timescales of interest in this study,
deformation of ice is negligible. In our experiments, measured vertical
velocities for the ungrounded regions of basal ice were of the order
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, equating to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm of lifting
over 5 min, which would have negligible effect on the stress field.
Therefore, our choice of a diagnostic model is an appropriate one for this study.</p>
      <p id="d1e3845">As in other diagnostic studies, we did not apply a calving criterion, instead
using the location of basal stress peaks as an indication of where crevasses
may form. For this to result in calving on the timescale proposed requires
the assumption of full-thickness crevassing on timescales much faster than
those observed by, e.g. Murray et al. (2015). Given a sufficiently large
buoyancy force, this assumption can be held as true, as once a crack has
initiated, the tensile stress which opened that crack refocuses at the crack
tip causing it to continue to propagate. As the crevasse increases in
height, hydrostatic pressure acting to open the crevasse decreases at a
faster rate than the ice overburden pressure acting to close it; therefore,
larger basal stresses are required for full-depth crevassing than for
crevasse initiation. However, once a crevasse has started to propagate and
the downstream portion of the snout has begun to lift and rotate, elastic
stresses further contribute to the crevasse growth in a feedback process.
Benn et al. (2017) reported that glacier geometries that did not result in
calving in Elmer/Ice via crevasse depth calving laws still produced large
full-depth calving event when exported into HiDEM, a model representing
glacier ice as a lattice of particles connected by breakable elastic beams.
Further investigation of the rate and modes of crevasse propagation could
integrate linear elastic fracture mechanics into a glacier model featuring
basal crevasses (van der Veen, 1998) or use a model such as HiDEM in
conjunction with Elmer/Ice (Benn et al., 2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e3849">Our study builds on that of O'Leary and Christoffersen (2013), which also
explored the effect of geometrical perturbations at the ice front on the
likelihood of calving. Their study found that undercutting led to larger
calving events and a higher overall calving rate, which appears to be at
odds with the results presented here: undercutting would reduce the buoyant
load and potentially stabilise the terminus. Our results differ because the
sharp transition in basal shear stress is not possible at the stress-free
surface boundary applied here. Furthermore, the geometry of their model was
set up to explore surface crevassing while ours was designed to explore
basal crevassing. In reality a mixture of these effects may be working
together to promote or prohibit calving.</p>
      <p id="d1e3852">Figure 1 suggests the subaerial calving event may result from undercutting
by a waterline notch. Although this process is observed at some glaciers
(e.g. Kirkbride and Warren, 1997; Röhl, 2006), it is questionable whether
it could be a major factor in the Ilulissat Icefjord (where the original
observation was made), in which the loosely bonded melange in summer may
act to damp any wave-cutting action (Amundson et al., 2010). An alternative
potential mechanism for triggering the subaerial calving event is provided
by spontaneous collapse of the ice cliff. The maximum stable cliff height
for damaged glacier ice was calculated by Bassis and Walker (2012) as 110 m,
while Hanson and Hooke (2003) suggested a maximum stable height of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m based on diagnostic model experiments. The ice cliffs
of JI approach 100 m but rarely exceed this height, suggesting that the
inherent instability of ice cliffs may be the limiting factor and could
induce calving through notch-triggered rotation.</p>
      <p id="d1e3865">Buoyancy in a glacier snout can also be induced by thinning due to high
surface melt rates. However, the almost immediate increase in buoyant load
resulting from the subaerial calving event proposed here occurs on
timescales much faster than can be accommodated by ice creep, leading to a
higher probability of calving (e.g. Boyce et al., 2007). The specific
location of the basal stress peak varied with many parameters, including the
notch length but tended to be within one ice thickness of the terminus,
consistent with observations (e.g. Walter et al., 2012; Murray et al.,
2015). The location of the peak stress always occurred much further back
from the terminus than the cliff at the rear of the notch, leading to an
amplification of the original subaerial calving event. The value of this
amplifying factor cannot be accurately quantified within the limitations of
a diagnostic model; however, it may present a method of linking
environmental forcings to the calving rate.</p>
      <p id="d1e3868">There are a number of possible refinements to our model. We ignored lateral
drag, which combines with basal shear stress to support the driving stress.
Although lateral drag may be negligible along the flow line of wide ice
streams, JI was able to form a floating tongue so it must be assumed<?pagebreak page1885?> that
lateral drag is significant (e.g. Thomas, 2004). Its omission may have
caused the model to overstate the dependence of basal stresses on the basal
sliding law. Our model also omits the effect of temperature. The viscosity
of ice and transmission of stresses are dependent on thermal gradients. JI
has large vertical temperature gradients (Lüthi et al., 2002) and
temperate basal ice, which are thought to play a role in its fast sliding.
Warmer basal temperatures may act to damp the intensity of basal stress
concentrations.</p>
      <p id="d1e3871">The reader should note that our model geometry is idealised. In reality,
glacier beds are highly non-uniform, with variations in geometry, water and
overburden pressure across a range of spatial and temporal scales. Bedrock
bumps therefore play an important role in controlling the stress
transmission upstream. It is plausible that these variations could result in
basal stress concentrations of a similar magnitude to the mechanism
discussed here.</p>
      <p id="d1e3874">The notch-triggered rotation mechanism was shown to be irrelevant when using
the Schoof law with full water pressure, since a glacier in these conditions
would tend to be vulnerable to buoyant calving anyway. This raises the
question of whether the Schoof law with full water pressure provides an
accurate representation of basal sliding for JI. We expect low effective
pressure in the frontal region; however, given that the glacier snout is
mostly grounded in the summer (e.g. Amundson et al., 2010), perfect hydraulic
connectivity cannot be assumed along the ice–bed interface. Complete
suppression of water pressure at the ice–bed interface resulted in a basal
stress pattern very similar to the Weertman case, although it was strongly
compressive everywhere due to the exclusion of water pressure in the
calculation of EPS and is therefore very unlikely to result in crevassing.
With <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as in this study, it can be easily shown
that large <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> MPa in the absence of water pressure)  leads to
small <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and Eq. (9) reduces to a Weertman power law:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E15" content-type="numbered"><label>15</label><mml:math id="M207" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e3986">On the other hand, limiting the basal water pressure without suppressing it
completely (experiments P0 and P100) resulted in a transition case
displaying similar behaviour to both the Weertman and Schoof laws; the
unperturbed stress profile was similar to that produced by the Schoof law,
but the perturbation resulted in a significantly larger stress peak like
those produced by the Weertman law. This raises the possibility that a
lightly grounded glacier snout, already in a state of basal tension, could
be subjected to high enough stress by a minor subaerial calving event, like
that observed at JI (Walter et al., 2012), to cause full depth crevassing
and buoyant calving.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e3999">Our results show that the notch-triggered rotation mechanism does produce
calving for an idealised marine-terminating glacier. Although
notch-triggered rotation did not significantly affect stresses when applying
the Schoof law under full hydrostatic pressure, removing the assumption of
perfect hydraulic connectivity at the ice–bed interface greatly enhanced the
likelihood of calving through this mechanism. Significantly, a realistic
length scale for calving events, on the order of hundreds of metres and
generally less than one ice thickness, naturally results from the model
physics. Fast-flowing glaciers near flotation and with shallow surface
slopes may be especially vulnerable to buoyant calving due to basal
crevassing. The notch-triggered rotation mechanism proposed here to explain
the observed calving event (Walter et al., 2012) does not replace other
models of calving. Instead, it bolsters our understanding of calving by
providing insight into multi-stage calving events occurring particularly on
large, fast-flowing tidewater glaciers.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d1e4006">Elmer/Ice code is publicly available through GitHub
(<uri>https://github.com/ElmerCSC/elmerfem</uri>, last access: 5 May 2019; ElmerCSC, 2019). All simulations were performed with
version 8.3 of Elmer/Ice. All scripts used for simulations are available
upon request from authors.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e4012">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-1877-2019-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-1877-2019-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e4021">MT designed the experiments with contributions from AJP and SLC and
MT carried them out. MT prepared the manuscript with contributions from
all co-authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e4027">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4033">Matt Trevers is supported by a NERC GW4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Doctoral Training Partnership studentship
from the Natural Environment Research Council (NE/L002434/1). We thank
Olivier Gagliardini and Thomas Zwinger for running the free Elmer/Ice
training course at the Neils Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, in November 2015. We
thank Olivier Gagliardini in particular for suggestions on the study scope
and invaluable technical support. We also thank Till Wagner for useful
comments on the original manuscript.
We are grateful to Jeremy Bassis and the anonymous referee for their constructive critiques, which helped to improve the quality of the paper.</p></ack><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e4045">This paper was edited by Eric Larour and reviewed by Jeremy Bassis and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Amundson, J. M., Fahnestock, M., Truffer, M., Brown, J., Lüthi, M. P.,
and Motyka, R. J.: Ice mélange dynamics and implications for terminus
stability, Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F01005,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001405" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JF001405</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Bassis, J. N. and Walker, C. C.: Upper and lower limits on the stability of
calving glaciers from the yield strength envelope of ice, P. Roy. Soc. Lond.
A Mat., 468, 913–931, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2011.0422" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rspa.2011.0422</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Benn, D. I., Hulton, N. R., and Mottram, R. H.: “Calving laws”, “sliding
laws” and the stability of tidewater glaciers, Ann. Glaciol., 46, 123–130,
2007a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Benn, D. I., Warren, C. R., and Mottram, R. H.: Calving processes and the
dynamics of calving glaciers, Earth-Sci. Rev., 82, 143–179,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.02.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.02.002</ext-link>, 2007b</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Benn, D. I., Aström, J., Todd, J., Nick, F. M., Hulton, N. R., and
Luckman, A.: Melt-undercutting and buoyancy-driven calving from tidewater
glaciers: new insights from discrete element and continuum model
simulations, J. Glaciol., 63, 691–702, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Boyce, E. S., Motyka, R. J., and Truffer, M.: Flotation and retreat of a
lake-calving terminus, Mendenhall Glacier, southeast Alaska, USA, J.
Glaciol., 53, 211-224, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756507782202928" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756507782202928</ext-link>, 2007</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, C. S., Meier, M. F., and Post, A.: Calving speed of Alaska tidewater
Glaciers, with application to Columbia Glacier, U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper, 1258–C, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Cook, S., Zwinger, T., Rutt, I. C., O'Neel, S., and Murray, T.: Testing the
effect of water in crevasses on a physically based calving model, Ann.
Glaciol., 53, 90–96, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2012AoG60A107" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2012AoG60A107</ext-link>, 2012</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Cook, S., Rutt, I. C., Murray, T., Luckman, A., Zwinger, T., Selmes, N.,
Goldsack, A., and James, T. D.: Modelling environmental influences on calving
at Helheim Glacier in eastern Greenland, The Cryosphere, 8, 827–841, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-827-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-8-827-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Cornford, S. L., Martin, D. F., Payne, A. J., Ng, E. G., Le Brocq, A. M., Gladstone, R. M., Edwards, T. L., Shannon, S. R., Agosta, C., van den Broeke, M. R., Hellmer, H. H., Krinner, G., Ligtenberg, S. R. M., Timmermann, R., and Vaughan, D. G.: Centuryscale simulations of the response of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to a warming climate, The Cryosphere, 9, 1579–1600, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1579-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-9-1579-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Cuffey, K. and Paterson, W. S. B.: The Physics of Glaciers, Academic Press, 4th Edn., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Durand, G., Gagliardini, O., De Fleurian, B., Zwinger, T., and Le Meur, E.:
Marine ice sheet dynamics: Hysteresis and neutral equilibrium, J.
Geophys. Res.-Solid Earth, 114, 1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001170" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JF001170</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>ElmerCSC: elmerfem, GitHub, available at: <uri>https://github.com/ElmerCSC/elmerfem</uri>, last access: 5 May 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Enderlin, E. M., Howat, I. M., and Vieli, A.: High sensitivity of tidewater
outlet glacier dynamics to shape, The Cryosphere, 7, 1007–1015,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1007-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-7-1007-2013</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Gagliardini, O., Cohen, D., Råback, P., and Zwinger, T.: Finite-element
modeling of subglacial cavities and related friction law, J.
Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf., 112, F02027, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000576" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JF000576</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Gagliardini, O., Zwinger, T., Gillet-Chaulet, F., Durand, G., Favier, L., De
Fleurian, B., Greve, R., Malinen, M., Martín, C., Råback, P.,
Ruokolainen, J., Sacchettini, M., Schäfer, M., Seddik, H., and Thies, J.:
Capabilities and performance of Elmer/Ice, a new-generation ice sheet model,
Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 1299–1318, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1299-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-1299-2013</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Glen, J. W.: The flow law of ice. A discussion of the assumptions made in
glacier theory, their experimental foundations and consequences, Int. Assoc.
Sci. Hydrol., 47, 171–183, 1958.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Hanson, B. and Hooke, R. L.: Glacier calving: a numerical model of forces in
the calving-speed/water-depth relation, J. Glaciol., 46, 188–196, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hanson, B. and Hooke, R. L.: Buckling rate and overhang development at a
calving face, J. Glaciol., 49, 577–586, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Joughin, I., Smith, B. E., Howat, I. M., Floricioiu, D., Alley, R. B.,
Truffer, M., and Fahnestock, M. A.: Seasonal to decadal scale variations in
the surface velocity of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland: Observation and
model-based analysis, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf., 117,
1–20, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002110" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JF002110</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Kirkbride, M. P. and Warren, C. R.: Calving processes at a grounded ice
cliff, Ann. Glaciol., 24, 116–121, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Krug, J., Weiss, J., Gagliardini, O., and Durand, G.: Combining damage and
fracture mechanics to model calving, The Cryosphere, 8, 2101–2117,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2101-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-8-2101-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Lee, V., Cornford, S. L., and Payne, A. J.: Initialization of an ice-sheet
model for present-day Greenland, Ann. Glaciol., 56, 129–140,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2015AoG70A121" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2015AoG70A121</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Leguy, G. R., Asay-Davis, X. S., and Lipscomb, W. H.: Parameterization of
basal friction near grounding lines in a one-dimensional ice sheet model,
The Cryosphere, 8, 1239–1259, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1239-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-8-1239-2014</ext-link>,  2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Luckman, A., Benn, D. I., Cottier, F., Bevan, S., Nilsen, F., and Inall, M.:
Calving rates at tidewater glaciers vary strongly with ocean temperature,
Nat. Commun., 6, 8566, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9566" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ncomms9566</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Lüthi, M. P., Funk, M., Iken, A., Gogineni, S., and Truffer, M.:
Mechanisms of fast flow in Jakobshavn Isbrae, West Greenland: Part III.
Measurements of ice deformation, temperature and cross-borehole conductivity
in boreholes to the bedrock, J. Glaciol., 48, 369–385,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756502781831322" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756502781831322</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Mosbeux, C., Wagner, T. J. W., Becker, M. K., and Fricker, H. A.: Viscous and elastic
buoyancy stresses as drivers of ice-shelf calving, J. Glaciol., in review, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Murray, T., Selmes, N., James, T. D., Edwards, S., Martin, I., O'Farrell,
T., Aspey, R., Rutt, I., Nettles, M., and Baugé, T.: Dynamics of glacier
calving at the ungrounded margin of Helheim Glacier, southeast Greenland,
J. Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf., 120, 964–982,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003531" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JF003531</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Nick, F. M., Vieli, A., Howat, I. M., and Joughin, I.: Large-scale changes
in Greenland outlet glacier dynamics triggered at the terminus, Nat.
Geosci., 2, 110–114, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo394" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo394</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Nick, F. M., van der Veen, C. J., Vieli, A., and Benn, D. I.: A physically
based calving model applied to marine outlet glaciers and implications for
the glacier dynamics, J. Glaciol., 56, 781–794,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/002214310794457344" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/002214310794457344</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1887?><ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Nick, F., Vieli, A., Andersen, M. L., Joughin, I., Payne, A., Edwards, T.,
Pattyn, F., and van de Wal, R.: Future sea-level rise from Greenland's main
outlet glaciers in a warming climate, Nature, 479, 235–238,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12068" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature12068</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Nye, J. F.: The distribution of stress and velocity in glaciers and
ice-sheets, P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A Mat., 239, 113–133, 1957.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>O'Leary, M. and Christoffersen, P.: Calving on tidewater glaciers amplified
by submarine frontal melting, The Cryosphere, 7, 119–128,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-119-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-7-119-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Otero, J., Navarro, F., Martin, C., Cuadrado, M., and Corcuera, M.: A
three-dimensional calving model: numerical experiments on Johnsons Glacier,
Livingston Island, Antarctica, J. Glaciol., 56, 200–214,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/002214310791968539" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/002214310791968539</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Reeh, N.: On the calving of ice from floating glaciers and ice shelves,
J. Glaciol., 7, 215–232, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/S0022143000031014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/S0022143000031014</ext-link>, 1968.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Röhl, K.: Thermo-erosional notch development at fresh-water calving
Tasman Glacier, New Zealand, J. Glaciol., 52, 203–213, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Scambos, T., Sergienko, O., Sargent, A., McAyeal, D., and Fastook, J.:
ICESat profiles of tabular iceberg margins and iceberg breakup at low
latitudes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23S09, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023802" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GL023802</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Schoof, C.: The effect of cavitation on glacier sliding, P. Roy. Soc.
A, 461, 609–627, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2004.1350" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rspa.2004.1350</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Schulson, E. M.: Brittle failure of ice, Eng. Fract. Mech., 68, 1839–1887,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00037-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00037-6</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Thomas, R. H.: Force-perturbation analysis of recent thinning and
acceleration of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, J. Glaciol., 50, 57–66,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756504781830321" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/172756504781830321</ext-link>, 2004</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Todd, J. and Christoffersen, P.: Are seasonal calving dynamics forced by
buttressing from ice mélange or undercutting by melting? Outcomes from
full-Stokes simulations of Store Gletscher, West Greenland, The Cryosphere,
8, 2353–2365, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2353-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-8-2353-2014</ext-link>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
van der Veen, C. J.: Tidewater calving, J. Glaciol., 42, 375–385, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>van der Veen, C. J.: Fracture mechanics approach to penetration of bottom
crevasses on glaciers, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 27, 213–223,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-232X(98)00006-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0165-232X(98)00006-8</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Vieli, A. and Nick, F. M.: Understanding and Modelling Rapid Dynamic Changes
of Tidewater Outlet Glaciers: Issues and Implications, Surv.
Geophys., 32, 437–458, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9132-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10712-011-9132-4</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Vieli, A., Funk, M., and Blatter, H.: Flow dynamics of tidewater glaciers: a
numerical modelling approach, J. Glaciol., 47, 595–606, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Wagner, T. J. W., Wadhams, P., Bates, R., Elosegui, P., Stern, A., Vella,
D., Abrahamsen, E. P., Crawford, A., and Nicholls, K. W.: The footloose
mechanism: Iceberg decay from hydrostatic stresses, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,
5522–5529, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Wagner, T. J. W., James, T. D., Murray, T., and Vella, D.: On the role of
buoyant flexure in glacier calving, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43,
232–240, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067247" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL067247</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Walter, F., Amundson, J. M., O'Neel, S., Truffer, M., Fahnestock, M. A., and
Fricker, H. A.: Analysis of low-frequency seismic signals generated during a
multiple-iceberg calving event at Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, J.
Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf., 117, 1–11,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002132" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JF002132</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Weertman, J.: On the sliding of glaciers, J. Glaciol., 3, 33–38, 1957.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Buoyant forces promote tidewater glacier iceberg calving through large basal stress concentrations</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Iceberg calving parameterisations currently implemented in ice
sheet models do not reproduce the full observed range of calving behaviours.
For example, though buoyant forces at the ice front are known to trigger
full-depth calving events on major Greenland outlet glaciers, a multi-stage
iceberg calving event at Jakobshavn Isbræ is unexplained by existing
models. To explain this and similar events, we propose a notch-triggered
rotation mechanism, whereby a relatively small subaerial calving event
triggers a larger full-depth calving event due to the abrupt increase in
buoyant load and the associated stresses generated at the ice–bed interface.
We investigate the notch-triggered rotation mechanism by applying a
geometric perturbation to the subaerial section of the calving front in a
diagnostic flow-line model of an idealised glacier snout, using the
full-Stokes, finite element method code Elmer/Ice. Different sliding laws
and water pressure boundary conditions are applied at the ice–bed interface.
Water pressure has a big influence on the likelihood of calving, and stress
concentrations large enough to open crevasses were generated in basal ice.
Significantly, the location of stress concentrations produced calving events
of approximately the size observed, providing support for future application
of the notch-triggered rotation mechanism in ice-sheet models.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Amundson, J. M., Fahnestock, M., Truffer, M., Brown, J., Lüthi, M. P.,
and Motyka, R. J.: Ice mélange dynamics and implications for terminus
stability, Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F01005,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001405" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001405</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bassis, J. N. and Walker, C. C.: Upper and lower limits on the stability of
calving glaciers from the yield strength envelope of ice, P. Roy. Soc. Lond.
A Mat., 468, 913–931, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2011.0422" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2011.0422</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Benn, D. I., Hulton, N. R., and Mottram, R. H.: “Calving laws”, “sliding
laws” and the stability of tidewater glaciers, Ann. Glaciol., 46, 123–130,
2007a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Benn, D. I., Warren, C. R., and Mottram, R. H.: Calving processes and the
dynamics of calving glaciers, Earth-Sci. Rev., 82, 143–179,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.02.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.02.002</a>, 2007b
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Benn, D. I., Aström, J., Todd, J., Nick, F. M., Hulton, N. R., and
Luckman, A.: Melt-undercutting and buoyancy-driven calving from tidewater
glaciers: new insights from discrete element and continuum model
simulations, J. Glaciol., 63, 691–702, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Boyce, E. S., Motyka, R. J., and Truffer, M.: Flotation and retreat of a
lake-calving terminus, Mendenhall Glacier, southeast Alaska, USA, J.
Glaciol., 53, 211-224, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756507782202928" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/172756507782202928</a>, 2007
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, C. S., Meier, M. F., and Post, A.: Calving speed of Alaska tidewater
Glaciers, with application to Columbia Glacier, U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper, 1258–C, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Cook, S., Zwinger, T., Rutt, I. C., O'Neel, S., and Murray, T.: Testing the
effect of water in crevasses on a physically based calving model, Ann.
Glaciol., 53, 90–96, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2012AoG60A107" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/2012AoG60A107</a>, 2012
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Cook, S., Rutt, I. C., Murray, T., Luckman, A., Zwinger, T., Selmes, N.,
Goldsack, A., and James, T. D.: Modelling environmental influences on calving
at Helheim Glacier in eastern Greenland, The Cryosphere, 8, 827–841, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-827-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-827-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Cornford, S. L., Martin, D. F., Payne, A. J., Ng, E. G., Le Brocq, A. M., Gladstone, R. M., Edwards, T. L., Shannon, S. R., Agosta, C., van den Broeke, M. R., Hellmer, H. H., Krinner, G., Ligtenberg, S. R. M., Timmermann, R., and Vaughan, D. G.: Centuryscale simulations of the response of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to a warming climate, The Cryosphere, 9, 1579–1600, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1579-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1579-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Cuffey, K. and Paterson, W. S. B.: The Physics of Glaciers, Academic Press, 4th Edn., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Durand, G., Gagliardini, O., De Fleurian, B., Zwinger, T., and Le Meur, E.:
Marine ice sheet dynamics: Hysteresis and neutral equilibrium, J.
Geophys. Res.-Solid Earth, 114, 1–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001170" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001170</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
ElmerCSC: elmerfem, GitHub, available at: <a href="https://github.com/ElmerCSC/elmerfem" target="_blank">https://github.com/ElmerCSC/elmerfem</a>, last access: 5 May 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Enderlin, E. M., Howat, I. M., and Vieli, A.: High sensitivity of tidewater
outlet glacier dynamics to shape, The Cryosphere, 7, 1007–1015,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1007-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1007-2013</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Gagliardini, O., Cohen, D., Råback, P., and Zwinger, T.: Finite-element
modeling of subglacial cavities and related friction law, J.
Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf., 112, F02027, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000576" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000576</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Gagliardini, O., Zwinger, T., Gillet-Chaulet, F., Durand, G., Favier, L., De
Fleurian, B., Greve, R., Malinen, M., Martín, C., Råback, P.,
Ruokolainen, J., Sacchettini, M., Schäfer, M., Seddik, H., and Thies, J.:
Capabilities and performance of Elmer/Ice, a new-generation ice sheet model,
Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 1299–1318, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1299-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1299-2013</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Glen, J. W.: The flow law of ice. A discussion of the assumptions made in
glacier theory, their experimental foundations and consequences, Int. Assoc.
Sci. Hydrol., 47, 171–183, 1958.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Hanson, B. and Hooke, R. L.: Glacier calving: a numerical model of forces in
the calving-speed/water-depth relation, J. Glaciol., 46, 188–196, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hanson, B. and Hooke, R. L.: Buckling rate and overhang development at a
calving face, J. Glaciol., 49, 577–586, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Joughin, I., Smith, B. E., Howat, I. M., Floricioiu, D., Alley, R. B.,
Truffer, M., and Fahnestock, M. A.: Seasonal to decadal scale variations in
the surface velocity of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland: Observation and
model-based analysis, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf., 117,
1–20, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002110" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002110</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Kirkbride, M. P. and Warren, C. R.: Calving processes at a grounded ice
cliff, Ann. Glaciol., 24, 116–121, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Krug, J., Weiss, J., Gagliardini, O., and Durand, G.: Combining damage and
fracture mechanics to model calving, The Cryosphere, 8, 2101–2117,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2101-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2101-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, V., Cornford, S. L., and Payne, A. J.: Initialization of an ice-sheet
model for present-day Greenland, Ann. Glaciol., 56, 129–140,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2015AoG70A121" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/2015AoG70A121</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Leguy, G. R., Asay-Davis, X. S., and Lipscomb, W. H.: Parameterization of
basal friction near grounding lines in a one-dimensional ice sheet model,
The Cryosphere, 8, 1239–1259, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1239-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1239-2014</a>,  2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Luckman, A., Benn, D. I., Cottier, F., Bevan, S., Nilsen, F., and Inall, M.:
Calving rates at tidewater glaciers vary strongly with ocean temperature,
Nat. Commun., 6, 8566, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9566" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9566</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Lüthi, M. P., Funk, M., Iken, A., Gogineni, S., and Truffer, M.:
Mechanisms of fast flow in Jakobshavn Isbrae, West Greenland: Part III.
Measurements of ice deformation, temperature and cross-borehole conductivity
in boreholes to the bedrock, J. Glaciol., 48, 369–385,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756502781831322" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/172756502781831322</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Mosbeux, C., Wagner, T. J. W., Becker, M. K., and Fricker, H. A.: Viscous and elastic
buoyancy stresses as drivers of ice-shelf calving, J. Glaciol., in review, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Murray, T., Selmes, N., James, T. D., Edwards, S., Martin, I., O'Farrell,
T., Aspey, R., Rutt, I., Nettles, M., and Baugé, T.: Dynamics of glacier
calving at the ungrounded margin of Helheim Glacier, southeast Greenland,
J. Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf., 120, 964–982,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003531" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003531</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Nick, F. M., Vieli, A., Howat, I. M., and Joughin, I.: Large-scale changes
in Greenland outlet glacier dynamics triggered at the terminus, Nat.
Geosci., 2, 110–114, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo394" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo394</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Nick, F. M., van der Veen, C. J., Vieli, A., and Benn, D. I.: A physically
based calving model applied to marine outlet glaciers and implications for
the glacier dynamics, J. Glaciol., 56, 781–794,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/002214310794457344" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/002214310794457344</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Nick, F., Vieli, A., Andersen, M. L., Joughin, I., Payne, A., Edwards, T.,
Pattyn, F., and van de Wal, R.: Future sea-level rise from Greenland's main
outlet glaciers in a warming climate, Nature, 479, 235–238,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12068" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12068</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Nye, J. F.: The distribution of stress and velocity in glaciers and
ice-sheets, P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A Mat., 239, 113–133, 1957.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
O'Leary, M. and Christoffersen, P.: Calving on tidewater glaciers amplified
by submarine frontal melting, The Cryosphere, 7, 119–128,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-119-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-119-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Otero, J., Navarro, F., Martin, C., Cuadrado, M., and Corcuera, M.: A
three-dimensional calving model: numerical experiments on Johnsons Glacier,
Livingston Island, Antarctica, J. Glaciol., 56, 200–214,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/002214310791968539" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/002214310791968539</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Reeh, N.: On the calving of ice from floating glaciers and ice shelves,
J. Glaciol., 7, 215–232, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/S0022143000031014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/S0022143000031014</a>, 1968.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Röhl, K.: Thermo-erosional notch development at fresh-water calving
Tasman Glacier, New Zealand, J. Glaciol., 52, 203–213, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Scambos, T., Sergienko, O., Sargent, A., McAyeal, D., and Fastook, J.:
ICESat profiles of tabular iceberg margins and iceberg breakup at low
latitudes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23S09, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023802" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023802</a>,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Schoof, C.: The effect of cavitation on glacier sliding, P. Roy. Soc.
A, 461, 609–627, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2004.1350" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2004.1350</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Schulson, E. M.: Brittle failure of ice, Eng. Fract. Mech., 68, 1839–1887,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00037-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00037-6</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Thomas, R. H.: Force-perturbation analysis of recent thinning and
acceleration of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, J. Glaciol., 50, 57–66,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/172756504781830321" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/172756504781830321</a>, 2004
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Todd, J. and Christoffersen, P.: Are seasonal calving dynamics forced by
buttressing from ice mélange or undercutting by melting? Outcomes from
full-Stokes simulations of Store Gletscher, West Greenland, The Cryosphere,
8, 2353–2365, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2353-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2353-2014</a>, 2014.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
van der Veen, C. J.: Tidewater calving, J. Glaciol., 42, 375–385, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
van der Veen, C. J.: Fracture mechanics approach to penetration of bottom
crevasses on glaciers, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 27, 213–223,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-232X(98)00006-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-232X(98)00006-8</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Vieli, A. and Nick, F. M.: Understanding and Modelling Rapid Dynamic Changes
of Tidewater Outlet Glaciers: Issues and Implications, Surv.
Geophys., 32, 437–458, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9132-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9132-4</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Vieli, A., Funk, M., and Blatter, H.: Flow dynamics of tidewater glaciers: a
numerical modelling approach, J. Glaciol., 47, 595–606, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Wagner, T. J. W., Wadhams, P., Bates, R., Elosegui, P., Stern, A., Vella,
D., Abrahamsen, E. P., Crawford, A., and Nicholls, K. W.: The footloose
mechanism: Iceberg decay from hydrostatic stresses, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,
5522–5529, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Wagner, T. J. W., James, T. D., Murray, T., and Vella, D.: On the role of
buoyant flexure in glacier calving, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43,
232–240, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067247" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067247</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Walter, F., Amundson, J. M., O'Neel, S., Truffer, M., Fahnestock, M. A., and
Fricker, H. A.: Analysis of low-frequency seismic signals generated during a
multiple-iceberg calving event at Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, J.
Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf., 117, 1–11,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002132" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002132</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Weertman, J.: On the sliding of glaciers, J. Glaciol., 3, 33–38, 1957.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
