the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Implementation of the Standard Viscous-Plastic Sea-Ice Model and Validation in Simple Idealized Experiments
Oreste Marquis
Bruno Tremblay
Jean-François Lemieux
Mohammed Islam
Abstract. The Viscous-Plastic (VP) rheology with an elliptical yield curve and normal flow rule is implemented in a Lagrangian modelling framework using the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) meshfree method. Results show, from perturbation analysis of SPH sea-ice dynamic equations, that the classical SPH particle density formulation expressed as a function of sea-ice concentration and mean ice thickness, leads to incorrect plastic wave speed. We propose a new formulation for particle density that gives a plastic wave speed in line with theory. In all cases, the plastic wave in the SPH framework is dispersive and depends on the smoothing length (i.e., the spatial resolution) and on the SPH kernel employed in contrast with its finite difference method (FDM) implementation counterpart. The steady-state solution for the simple 1D ridging experiment is in agreement with the analytical solution within an error of 1 %. SPH is also able to simulate a stable upstream ice arch in an idealized domain representing the Nares Strait in low wind regime (5.3 [m · s−1]) with an ellipse aspect ratio of 2, an average thickness of 1 [m] and free-slip boundary conditions in opposition to the FDM implementation that requires higher shear strength to simulate it. In higher wind regime (7.5 [m · s−1]) no stable ice arches are simulated — unless the thickness is increased — and the ice arch formation showed no dependence on the size of particles contrary to what is observed in the discrete element framework. Finally, the SPH framework is explicit, can take full advantage of parallel processing capabilities and show potential for pan-arctic climate simulations.
Oreste Marquis et al.
Status: open (extended)
-
CC1: 'Comment on tc-2022-163', Oreste Marquis, 06 Mar 2023
reply
Not sure what to do, it has been 6 months and I have not receive any comment yet from y referee. Is it possible to remind them and if they are not disponible anymore to change them?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2022-163-CC1 -
EC1: 'Reply on CC1', Jari Haapala, 09 Mar 2023
reply
Dear Authors,
I'm really sorry that we haven't got any reviewers comments on your manuscript yet. Two very competent experts were agreed to conduct reviews but haven't provided their comments despite my several reminders. I have been asking many other experts to conduct this review but for a some reason, all of them have declined.
Best wishes,
Jari Haapala
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2022-163-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Oreste Marquis, 10 Mar 2023
reply
Thank you very much Jari for the information and your help trying to find reviewers! I was curious also, are they supposed to both write to you the review or are they supposed to submit it directly here in the discussion? In the case that they are communicating with you, do both reviews are missing or only one? I feel it is a bit odd that both reviewers take a lot of time.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2022-163-AC1 -
EC2: 'Reply on AC1', Jari Haapala, 10 Mar 2023
reply
We are missing comments from both reviewers. Reviewers comments will be public and will be published without delay in this page.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2022-163-EC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on EC2', Oreste Marquis, 17 Mar 2023
reply
Thank you very much for the informations! I will keep waiting then.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2022-163-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on EC2', Oreste Marquis, 17 Mar 2023
reply
-
EC2: 'Reply on AC1', Jari Haapala, 10 Mar 2023
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Oreste Marquis, 10 Mar 2023
reply
-
EC1: 'Reply on CC1', Jari Haapala, 09 Mar 2023
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on tc-2022-163', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 May 2023
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2022-163/tc-2022-163-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Oreste Marquis, 01 May 2023
reply
Thank you for your comments, I will get to them as soon as possible! However, I am away from my office until the 5th of June. Sorry for the delay.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2022-163-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Oreste Marquis, 01 May 2023
reply
Oreste Marquis et al.
Oreste Marquis et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
353 | 154 | 22 | 529 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 353
- PDF: 154
- XML: 22
- Total: 529
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1