04.04.

2023
Assignment II
Written by Fergus Dal and Ola Berg Edseth
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

Table of Contents
Task 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Task 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 10

2
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

Task 1

Table 1: Danger description - 30.12.2021

Factor Description Danger level

Snowpack stability
Avalanches: Release prob-
ability, size, frequency
Consequences for trans-
portation routes and settle-
ments/recommendations
Consequences for persons
outside secured zones/rec-
ommendations
Based on the measured new snow LOW
height and the temperatures in the as-
signment description, there has been
no significant change in the snowpack
stability compared to the day before.
Therefore, the snowpack stability
should remain at the same danger level
as on the 28th and 29th of December.
The avalanche danger level on the 28th
and 29th was low meaning that the
snowpack stability was probably also
low.
Occasional triggering of avalanches in MODERATE
wind slabs, particularly on shady
slopes.
No indication of increased danger of
natural avalanches.
It is advisable to avoid shady slopes LOW/MODERATE
with wind slabs if possible. But the
danger is deemed low.

Given the above avalanche danger assessments on the 30th of December, the overall danger
level corresponds to LOW as per the European Danger Scale meaning that the avalanche situ-
ation in general is favorable. Although a case could be made for classifying the situation as
MODERATE, we find it less convincing.

3
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

Table 2: Avalanche Danger evolution 30.12.2020-3.01.2021

5–Very high

4–High

3–Considerable

2–Moderate

1–Low

28 29 30 31 1 2 3
December 2020 – January 2021

4
Table 3: Assessment of the avalanche danger

Date Contributory factors +/-/0 Assessment of contributory factors Overall assessment

31 Dec new snow 0 No new snow

wind Max ~95km/h and mean ~

27 km/h. N/W-Direction.
- Turbulent mean wind of
~25 km/h is around most
thresholds (Perla, Föhn).
temperature Snow temperature increases from Taken the different

~(-)15°C to ~(-)8°C, having a factors into

negative effect on snow stiffness. account, the overall

This change is however not assessment points

concerning. Low temperatures towards decrase in

reduces the danger of snow snowpack stability,

avalanches. although this

- Since the snow temperature is decrease is of

lower than 0°C, there is no danger minor gravity. The

for sliding. This goes for the conditions have not

whole period until 03.01. changed

The snow temperature follows the significantyl from

air temperature also relatively the previous three

well. We do not expect very steep days, and so we

temperature gradients. conclude that the

snow cover Presence of weak layers in the danger level

snow pack (as of 18th of remains LOW.

December) which may result in

- avalanche initiation. From the
Rutschblock Test the probability
of propagation seems low. Keep
in mind that the profile stems
from before the available weather
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

data, and so these statements are

made with considerable
uncertainties.
1 Jan new snow Jostsee 47 cm/24h and Oberwald
14 cm/24h, these values are
sufficient to merit an increased
danger level, as per Mujnter
-
(2003). Even if we assume we
have favorable conditions (for
Jostsee).

wind Max ~ 85km/h and mean ~

30 km/h. N/W and N-direction. The large amounts
- Turbulent mean wind of of snowfall in
~25 km/h is around most combination witn
thresholds (Perla, Föhn). strong winds and
temperature The temperature starts around - presence of weaker
12°C and during the day increases layers in the
until -7.5°C snowpack leads us
0 The snow and air temperatures to conclude that the
follow each other pretty good danger level most
The cold temperatures conserves likely has increased
the avalanche danger to
snow cover Given the presence of weak CONSIDERABLE.
layers and the combination of
high amounts of snowfall during
the day and relatively strong
winds, accumulation on lee slopes
-
may result in even more
considerable danger levels
In general quick increases in
snow depth increase the danger of
spontaneous avalanche releases

6
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

2 Jan new snow Again, significant amounts of

new snow, resulting in
considerable levels of avalanche
-
danger.
The accumulated
Jostsee 33 cm/24h and Oberwald
amount of new
23 cm/24h
snow in
wind Max ~ 65 km/h and mean ~
combination with
20 km/h. N/W-Direction
presence of weak
0 Turbulent mean wind of
layers results in an
~25 km/h is around most
increased danger
thresholds (Perla, Föhn).
level. We are now
temperature Over the day the snow and air
observing
temperature starts around -7.5°C
approximately 80
and increases to around -5°C
cm of new snow
during the day
over a 48 hour
Increase in temperature leads to a
period. This
decrease in vertical temperature
accumulation alone
gradient in the snowpack. This
is worrisome, even
decreased gradient increasingly
if the hihger
favors the formation of rounded
0 temperatures might
grains which exhibit stronger
result in less
bonding. Crucially though, lower
faceted grains in
gradients means smalles
the snowpack.
probability of formation of
Taking all these
faceted grains which are really
considerations
bad for stability.
together we assess
The snow temperature is during
the danger level to
2.01 low and cold temperatures
have increased to
conserves the avalanche danger
HIGH.
snow cover The lower temperature gradient
might have contributed in
-
increased rounding of grains in
the lower levels of the snowpack,

7
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

but the heavy snowfall on top of

an older snow layer is expected to
create a weaker layer
sandwhiched between harder old
snow and small grained new
snow (also observed in the
stratigraphy from the 4th of
January). This is an unfavorable
situation.
Large amounts of new snow
increases the danger for
spontaneous avalanche releases
3 Jan new snow Jostsee 29 cm/24h and Oberwald The reasoning
-
6 cm/24h behind the overall
wind Max ~ 35 km/h and mean ~ assessment follows
20 km/h. Both S/W and S/E. the same arguments
0 Turbulent mean wind of as the day before.
~25 km/h is around most However we now
thresholds (Perla, Föhn). have an even
temperature Snow temperatures starts around - higher 3 day snow
5°C and ends around -15°C depth, and so the
Temperature starts to vary more, potential
but remains relatively high. We avalanches may be
do not expect large gradients in of even greater size
the snowpack. (mass). HIGH
The reduction in snow Considering the
0/+
temperature contributes to a favorable wind and
higher snow stability. temperature
However, the increase in air conditions we
temperature might cause the snow could also argue for
to melt, which can weaken the danger level 3.
snowpack stability. At the same However we find it
time the snow surface less convincing and

8
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

temperature remains way below rather choose to be

the freeizing temperature. We do on the safe side.
not believe the increase in air
temperature will have a
significant imapct on the
snowpack stability, since the
temperatures are only slightly
above the freezing point for a
relatively short time (approx. 8
hours).
snow cover The lower temperatures might
have stabilized the lower layers,
but looking at the snow profile
from the 4th of January, we see the
distinct formation of a
homogeneous (RB4 whole block,
-
clean) weak layer below all the
new snowfall. This is indicative
of an unfavorable situation.
Large amounts of new snow
increases the danger for
spontaneous avalanche releases

9
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

Task 2
The two provided snow profiles give information about the stability of the different layers
and include information regarding the snow temperature, grain type, grain size, the hardness
in the snow and the number of “lemons”. Since we expect the avalanche danger to peak
around the 3rd of January, the snow profile of the 4th of January will be considered more rele-
vant for the description of the snow avalanche.

Profile description
Hardness
The hardness of a snowpack can be measured by the RAM resistance and hand hard-
ness. In the case of the RAM resistance, the profile is a function of the general
strength within the snowpack without saying something about the weak layers. In or-
der to detect weak layers a hand hardness profile is being used. The difference in the
hand hardness in the layers is important for the snowpack stability and should be less
than 2. A high difference in hardness can contribute to unstable snowpack conditions
and increase the risk of avalanches.
If the difference in the hardness of the snow profile of the 4th of January is being con-
sidered, there is some layers of interest, especially if the number of lemons also are
being considered:
- 0 cm – 30 cm (Layer A), the difference between the hardness in Layer A
and the layer above is a minimum of 1 and the maximum of 2.
- 75 cm – 88 cm (Layer B), the difference in the hardness between Layer B
and Layer C is minimum 2 and maximum 3.
- 88 cm – 90 cm (Layer C), the difference in the hardness is minimum of 2
and maximum of 3.
If the difference in hardness of the snow profile of 18th of December is being consid-
ered, there is in general a very large difference (greater or equal to two) in hardness
between the layers. For example, the layer between 0 cm and 35 cm and the layer be-
tween 35 cm and 37 cm have a difference in hardness of minimum 2 and maximum 3.
If we consider the layer two layers where the block was released in the Rutschblock
test the two layers have a significant difference in the hardness (max. 4 and min. 3).

10
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

Grain shape and size

The grain shape and size have a large influence on the danger level. In general, large
grains mean less favorable interbonding. The grain size should ideally be less than
1.25 mm. Grain shapes such as faceted, depth hoar and surface hoar are particularly
poorly bounded and are often the components of weak layers.
If the grain shapes and sizes in the snow profile of the 4th of January are being consid-
ered, following observations can be made:
- 0 cm – 30 cm (Layer A), the grain size is between 2 mm and 3 mm and the
grains have the form of faceted crystals with rounding facets and corners
in addition to depth hoar. Also, the difference in the grain size between
Layer A and the layer above more than 0.75 mm. Both the size, the differ-
ence in grain size and the shape is contributing to the instability of the
snow layer.
- 75 cm – 88 cm (Layer B), the grain size is between 1 mm and 1.5 mm
meaning that a part of the grain size range is in the critical range. The
shape of the grain is partially faceted and partly faceted crystals with
rounding facets and corners. The difference in the grain size from the layer
above and below is not in the critical area.
- 88 cm – 90 cm (Layer C), the grain size lays between 1 mm and 2 mm
meaning that a certain part of the grains will be in the critical range (≥
1.25 mm). The grain shape is not contributing to a lower stability. Also, the
difference in the size of the grains is not significant.
In the case of the snow profile of 18.12 is being considered, several of the layers have
snow grains that reduces the snowpack stability. Depth hoar, faceted, faceted crystals
with rounding facets and corners, are some of the grains that can be found. Regarding
the size of the grains, the layer between 0 cm and 37 cm is more than 5 mm clearly
exceeding the threshold value of 1.25 mm. In addition, there are several layers with a
size of 2 mm, also exceeding the threshold value of 1.25 mm.

11
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

Rutschblock
Rutschblock test is a test done in order to see how easy a fracture was initiated. The
scores range from 1 to 7; between 1 and 3 the snow is indicated as unstable, between
4 and 5 is the intermediate range and 6 to 7 a stable snowpack.
In our case a Rutschblock score of 4 (the block fails on the first jump with skis from
above) was reached on the 4th of January which is not in the critical range, but the
type of release (whole block) is seen as critical. The block was released at a snow
height of around 95 cm in the layer of faceted grains with a size of between 1 mm and
1.5 mm. Although this layer has fewer lemons than its below neighbors, it remains
significantly vulnerable to loading because of its reduced thickness and lesser depth.
Additionally, this layer is composed of more fragile crystals (faceted) situated be-
tween two melt-freeze crust layers. This combination is a big red flag.
On the 18th of December the Rutschblock score was measured to be 3 (while three
times dropping from straight legs to bent knees) and the release type was one corner
and rough. Meaning that the Rutschblock score is in the unstable range, while the re-
lease type is seen as less critical. The block was released at a snow height of around
75 cm between two layers. The two layers have large grains (2 mm) and a difference
in hardness of 3 or 4.
Conclusion
If we use the rule of thumb from SLF, where the Rutschblock score (<3), the release
portion (Entire Block) and the number of “Lemons” (≥5) is being considered, the
snowpack stability in Layer B and Layer C can be classified as poor on the 4th of janu-
ary. In the case of 18th of December, the snow pack stability can be classified as poor,
since a number of the layers have 5 lemons or more. In addition, the Rutschblock
score is 3.

Avalanche type
Origin
Slab avalanche can be expected in the case of a bonded layer situated on top of a
weak layer found on a slope angle of 30°. In our case the slope angle was 29°. In the
region of Oberwald the snow profile of the 4th of January shows two weak layers be-
tween 75 cm and 90 cm (Layer B and Layer C). Firstly, the two layers have relatively
large grains; the layer between 75 cm and 88 cm (Layer B) has a grain size of 1 – 1.5

12
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

mm and the layer between 88 cm and 90 cm (Layer C) between 1 – 2 mm. If the dif-
ference in the grain size is being considered, the difference in grain size between
Layer B and Layer C is not significant. The difference in hardness between the layers
is more noteworthy; below and above of Layer B and Layer C the difference in hard-
ness will be ≥ 2 (except from below Layer B where the difference will be minimum 1
and maximal 2). If the difference in hardness is too high, it can lead to a rise in stress
concentrations. The grain type can also contribute to the danger level, especially for
Layer A where we will have both facet and faceted crystals with round facets and cor-
ners. Layer C has melted formed snow grains, which do not contribute to an increase
of the danger level. In general, faceted grains lead to little bonding between the
grains. In addition, both Layer B and C are located under a snow depth of 1 m. Also, a
Rutschblock score of 4 was reached which is not in the critical range, but the type of
release (whole block) is seen as critical. Both Layer A, Layer B and Layer C will have
a total of 5 “lemons” and in terms of “lemons” the mentioned layers will be the most
unstable layers. Taking into consideration that there are two weak layers (Layer B and
Layer C) and on top of the two layers a layer where the Rutschblocktest had a clean
whole block, the probability of a slab avalanche is high.
Also, the probability of a loose snow avalanche should be considered. In the case of
high wind speeds, snow can accumulate in wind protected spots and create an addi-
tional load. If the snow is not being consolidated, a dry loose snow avalanche can be
triggered. However, points releases occur at very steep slopes, usually 35° or steeper.
Therefore, the probability of having a point release is relatively low in our case with
an angle of 29° but may be increased in steeper slopes in the region.
We expect the position of the failure layer to be within the snowpack and the origin
can be classified as surface-layer avalanche. As described above, the two weak layers
are between 75 cm and 90 cm. We also expect to have a dry avalanche, since the snow
temperature is below 0°C. Both gliding avalanches and wet snow avalanches are
therefore less likely to happen.

13
SNOW AND AVALANCHES ASSIGNMENT II FERGUS DAL/OLA EDSETH

Trigger
A slab avalanche can be triggered naturally or artificially, especially in the case of the
considered danger level. In the case of an accumulation of snow in wind protected
spots the additional snow load can lead to a natural triggering of a large or very large
avalanche. Additional load from humans can also lead to a triggering of the ava-
lanche. If we assume that the danger level is high, only a low additional load is
needed to trigger an avalanche. This can be single a skier, snowboarder or snowshoe
hiker.

Size
Taking a high danger level into consideration, numerous large and often very large
natural avalanches can be triggered. In the case of a large avalanche the typical mass
is 1000 tons, the length is between 300 m – 1000 m. In the case of a very large ava-
lanche the typical mass is 10 000 tons and the length between 1000 m and 2000 m.

14