The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of the shear frame test for weak snowpack layers
Open accessAbstract
The shear frame allows testing of thin weak snowpack layers that are often critical for slab avalanche release. A shear metal frame with an area of 0.01–0.05 m 2 is used to grip the snow a few mm above a buried weak snowpack layer. Using a force gauge, the frame is pulled until a fracture occurs in the weak layer within 1 s. The strength is calculated from the maximum force divided by the area of the frame. Finite-element studies show that the shear stress in the weak layer is concentrated below the cross-members that subdivide the frame and where the weak layer is notched at the front and back of the frame. Placing the bottom of the frame in the weak layer increases the stress concentrations, and results in significantly lower strength measurements than placing the bottom of the frame a few mm above the weak layer. Based on over 800 sets of 7–12 tests in western Canada, coefficients of variation average 14% and 18% from level study plots and avalanche start zones, respectively. Consequently,sets of 12 tests typically yield a precision of the mean of 10% with 95% confidence, which is sufficient for monitoring of strength change of weak layers over time in study plots. With consistent technique, there is no significant difference in mean strength measurements obtained by different experienced shear frame operators using the same approximate loading rate and technique for placing the frame. Although fracture surfaces are usually planar, only one of eleven shapes of non-planar fracture surfaces showed significantly different strength compared to planar fracture surfaces. For weak layers thick enough for density measurements, the shear strength is plotted against density and grain form. From these data, empirical equations are determined to estimate the shear strength of weak snowpack layers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The maximum shear stress exerted by the resultant force F1 must not exceed the shear strength of the frost layer.
“The total volume of the frost branch cluster is defined as [10], and the maximum shear stress exerted by the resultant force F 1 must not exceed the shear strength σ [26]:”
From Analysis of long-term growth characteristics of frost layer on inclined cold surface of microchannel heat exchanger (2026) · cites this paper as [26]
The section “SHEAR STRESS IN WEAK LAYER INDUCED BY SHEAR FRAME” compares applied shear stress with the typical shear strength of a weak snow layer. It does not describe a resultant force F1, a frost layer, or the stated maximum-stress condition for that layer. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cohesion bound c ≈ 440 Pa is well within the range reported by Jamieson and Johnson.
“This is well within the range reported by Jamieson and Johnson 33”
From Mechanisms of slab avalanche release and impact in the Dyatlov Pass incident in 1959 (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
The Summary reports weak-layer shear strengths from 0.1 to at least 2 kPa, a range that includes 440 Pa (0.44 kPa). But the section on shear strength and density explicitly cautions that the shear-frame test does not measure cohesion unless normal-load effects are weak, so it does not establish a range of cohesion values. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The statistical theory of the strength of bundles of threads. I
Daniels, H. E. (1945) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.1945.0011 · Cited by 1,124
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- Martinelli, 1971, Physical properties of alpine snow as related to weather and avalanche conditions, U.S. For. Serv. Res. Pap, RM
- Narita, 1980, Mechanical behaviour and structure of snow under uniaxial tensile stress, J. Glacial., 26, 275, 10.3189/S0022143000010819 · DOI
- 10.3189/S0022143000010753 · DOI
- Fukuzawa, 1993, ISSW ’92. A merging of theory and practice. International Snow Science Workshop, 4–8 October 1992, Breckenridge, Colorado. Proceedings, 171
- Keeler, 1969, The growth of bonds and the increase of mechanical strength in a dry seasonal snow-pack, J. Glacial., 8, 441, 10.3189/S0022143000027027 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0260305500014440 · DOI
- Fohn, 1987a, The “Rutschblock” as a practical tool for slope stability evaluation, International Association of Hydrologcial Sciences Publication, 162, 223
- Ballard, 1965, Considerations of the strength of snow, CRREL Res.Rep, 184
- Sommerfeld, 1973, Statistical problems in snow mechanics, U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep, 29
- 1995, Observation guidelines and recording standards for weather, snowpack and avalanches
- 10.3189/S0022143000030380 · DOI
- Jamieson J. B. 1989. In situ tensile strength of snow in relation to slab avalanches. (M.Sc. thesis, University of Calgary. Department of Civil Engineering.)
- 10.1016/0165-232X(82)90040-4 · DOI
- Föhn, 1993, ISSW ’92. A merging of theory and practice. International Snow Science Workshop, 4–8 October 1992, Breckenridge, Colorado. Proceedings, 160
- 10.1017/S0260305500014993 · DOI
- Schleiss, 1970, Ice engineering and avalanche forecasting
- Mattson, 1981, Statistics: difficult concepts, understandable explanations
- Föhn, 1997, ISSW ’96. International Snow Science Workshop, 6–10 October 1996, Banff, Alberta. Proceedings, 158
- Sommerfeld, 1984, Instructions for using the 250 cm2 shear frame to evaluate the strength of a buried snow surface, U.S. For. Serv. Res. Note, 446, 1
- 1994, Statistica Volume I: general conventions and statistics I
- 10.1139/t77-021 · DOI
- Singh H. 1980. A finite-element model for the prediction of dry slab avalanches. (Ph.D. thesis, Colorado State University.)
- Colbeck, 1990, The international classification for seasonal snow on the ground
- Jamieson J. B. 1995. Avalanche prediction for persistent snow slabs. (Ph.D. thesis, University of Calgary.)
- Mellor, 1975, A review of basic snow mechanics, International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication, 114, 251
- De Quervain, 1951, Strength properties of a snow cover and its measurement [Die Festigkeitseigenschaften der Schneedecke und ihre Messung], SIPRE Transl, 9
- Sommerfeld, 1976, A correction factor for Roch’s stability index of slab avalanche release, J. Glacial., 17, 145
- Roch, 1966b, Les variations de la resistance de la neige, International Association of Scientific Hydrology Publication, 69, 86
- Keeler, 1968, Investigations into the mechanical properties of alpine snow-packs, J. Glaciol., 7, 253, 10.3189/S0022143000031038 · DOI
- Brun, 1987, Field study on snow mechanical properties with special regard to liquid water content, International Association of Hydrologcial Sciences Publication, 162, 183
- Roch, 1966a, Les declenchements d’avalanches, International Association of Scientific Hydrology Publication, 69, 182
- 10.3189/S002214300000561X · DOI
- Föhn, 1987b, The stability index and various triggering mechanisms, International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication, 162, 195
- Sommerfeld, 1979, A recommendation for the application of the Roch index for slab avalanche release, J. Glacial., 22, 547, 10.3189/S0022143000014520 · DOI
- 10.3189/S0022143000013897 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mechanisms of slab avalanche release and impact in the Dyatlov Pass incident in 1959
Gaume, J., & Puzrin, A. M. (2021) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-020-00081-8 · Cited by 12
Han, Z., Han, B., Wang, Z., & Liu, H. (2026) · International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer · doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2025.127985 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Jamieson, B., & Johnston, C. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- ORCID
- Jamieson, Bruce
- Venue
- Annals of Glaciology
- Publisher
- International Glaciological Society
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 32
- Pages
- 59-69
- ISSN
- 0260-3055 (ISSN-L)
- 1727-5644
- OpenAlex
- W2024597910
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 56.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annals of Glaciology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Landslides and related hazards
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Cryospheric studies and observations
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Tree Root and Stability Studies
- Keywords
- shear strength, stress concentration, snow density, empirical strength equation, test precision, snowpack monitoring
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
