A thin granular ice layer with a thickness of 5–30 cm appeared at the top of all investigated ice cores. Many factors affected the thickness of the granular ice layer, such as the salinity of sea water, temperature, environmental and water conditions (
Timco and Weeks, 2010). Although the ice stations were close to one another, samples of sea ice were collected from different ice floes. Therefore, different growth environments resulted in differences in the granular ice layers. The grains of ice in these layers were spherical or quasi spherical, with a typical size of 2–7 mm. The thin granular ice layer can be classified as superimposed/primary ice originating from the rapid consolidation of the dynamically grown frazil, but not snow ice, because its salinity was nearly zero (
Huang et al., 2013,
2016). During melting of the surface, a large amount of deteriorated ice and cavities formed on the top layer, especially for the 0–5 cm (
Fig. 5). In all cases, a transition layer could be easily founded between the top granular-ice layer and lower columnar-ice layer. The transition layer was a zone of mixed columnar/granular ice (
Weeks and Ackley, 1986). There were two ways for the transition layer to form. One was through the transition of the growth regime from dynamically-growing frazil ice to congelation-grown columnar ice. This kind of transition layer is the most common between granular and columnar ice layers (
Eicken et al., 1995). The other kind of transition layer was formed based on the deterioration and retexturing of columnar ice due to sea-ice interior melting. This kind of ice was highly porous and its crystal skeleton was broken to a high degree. Highly porous ice was observed clearly in all cases (e.g.,
Fig. 5), and the ice core samples were collected in the melting period (10–24 August). Thus, the transition was caused mainly by internal melting. Columnar ice formed the largest part of the core in all cases, and its thickness ranged from 49 cm to 108 cm. It was formed through the consolidation of frazil crystals (tiny spicules and platelets, a few millimeters in size) grown within leads or at depth accumulated at the bottom of the ice cover (
Eicken et al., 1995). Inner, discontinuous interfaces were observed at S3 and S6 from a thin section under polarized light, such as the discontinuous interface of S6 shown in
Fig. 5. These inner discontinuous interfaces were not related to any inner granular-ice layer or inclined columnar ice. They can be associated with the discontinuous thermodynamic growth processes in winter, but not with the repeated freezing and thawing processes and nor with dynamical deformation processes (
Huang et al., 2013). The thickness of the columnar ice layer depended on a variety of factors, such as the growth rate of ice, salinity of the underlying water, and magnitude of currents enhancing transport away from the ice (
Petrich and Eicken, 2009). Therefore, columnar ice could stop growing at some time during winter due to changes in external conditions and the ice could continue to grow when the relevant conditions were met (
Huang et al., 2013,
2016). This is discontinuous thermodynamic growth that gave rise to inner discontinuous interfaces (
Figs 5 and
6). According to
Fig. 6, the inner discontinuous interfaces were observed in S3 and S6, which means that the columnar ice layer in other ice stations was formed in one episode of thermodynamic growth. The mean individual columnar-ice layer for all cases was (70±30) cm. The maximum thickness of the individual columnar layer of ice was 108 cm as observed at S7. According to
Martin (1979), the granular ice accounts for less than 10% of Arctic sea ice. In our observation, the ratio of granular ice to all ice ranged from 0.07 to 0.10, and was consistent with Martin’s conclusion. The ratio of granular to columnar ice ranged from 0.05 to 0.42 and did not exhibit any proportional relation.