AT-334/834

Arctic Marine Measurements Techniques,

Operations and Transport (10 ECTS)

Introduction
Overall objective
Operate ships and structures safely

Safe for
• People
• Environment (accidents and footprint)
Cheap enough
• Public regulations and budget
• Profit in companies
Build on Marine / Ocean Technology methods
• Modify
• Develop new
Why build or develop something?
Societal and political decision
What is the benefit?
• Maintain sovereignty
• Develop natural resourses
• Tourism
• Research and education
Is the risk acceptable?
• Are people safe?
• Is the environment safe?
• Does it feel right?
• Can we calculate the risk?
 Some examples of structures and vessels .

WP5: Ice Management

WP6: Coastal Technology

WP4: Floating Structures in Ice

WP3: Fixed Structures in Ice

WPs 1&2: Quantifying the Physical Environment

Longyearbyen harbour – May 2004
Lance in ice – May 2002
 Module I Module II
Design relevant conditions
sensors, sensor
characterisation of
platforms and control
the Arctic marine technique for marine
Detection of environmental conditions
environment (sea ice surveillance and
and icebergs) operations in the Arctic

Module III

design and
Design relevant conditions Monitoring and DP in ice
operations of ships
in ice
Regional ice
surveillance
Ice Management – New Technologies
Iceberg detection
and tracking Ad-hoc Icebreaker I
communication County size ice floes
network

Icebreaker II
Cuts ice into small pieces
Ice drift Local and
regional aerial
ice observation
Protected vessel
Online ice drift
monitoring units Unmanned
aerial utility
vehicle

Local underwater
ice observation

(Source: Roger Skjetne WP5, SAMCoT)

 Measure data that can be applied
Apply data that can be measured

Data
• Long term data for design (little data)
• Short term data for risk monitoring (big data)

Design, Reliability On-line monitoring

(50 year) and risk evaluation
+ mitigation (ice can
(Ice has clear be managed)
seasonal trends)
Ice compared to waves
Much larger spatial and temporal variability
More difficult to measure
Little and uncertain data
Can be managed (to a certain degree)

We know less and it is more difficult!

Design and uncertain data
Climate change – uncertain predictions
All prediction models are uncertain
Variability is large
Small changes in air temperature -> large changes in ice cover

How should an engineer decide which scenario to apply in design?

Uncertain climate change predictions – Barents Sea

Ice conditions next 50 years?

Average all data?
Average past 40 years?
Extrapolate recent trend?

Distance from the Visting field to the ice edge

Uncertain climate change predictions – Air
Temperatures in the northern Baltic
• Air temperatures (converted
into Ice thicknesses)
• Average all data?
• Average since 1985
• Trend last 15 years?
• Or since 2007?
Possible solution
Design for the most probable 100 year (10-2) conditions

Monitor structure and environment (requires new sensors, sensor

platforms and methods to analyse data)

Take action if conditions may get worse than designed for

Does not work for Tsunami-like events!

Application for both Operations and Ships
Step one:
• Estimate initial ice (ridge) statistics to be applied in probabilistic analysis
• Ridge statistics from other areas
• Simple simulations of physical processes in current area
• All available information from current area
• Estimate initial ice load (and system) identification model
Step two:
• Monitor ice conditions
• Remote sensing – ship based sensor (and methods in between)
• Monitor structural response
• IMU
• Strain gauges
• ??
 Define ULS conditions
Scale-model
testing
Measurements
of environment
Establish ice
forecast
Reliability Optimization
Simulations of analysis and final design
environment
(based on
physical laws) Load / response
model

Full-scale data
Structural
on structural
concept
load/response
 Update periodically or continuously
Step 2

Update ice (ridge Ice conditions

statistics)
Analysis

Update system / ice Structural response

Reliability for rare events – load identification
analogy to breaking waves?

Operate structure
OK while monitoring:
Risk
evaluation
Not OK

Ice-structure interaction
model (partner models

Modify structure,
Ice management alter operation,
(SAMCoT knowledge find new route

Close facilities or
Applies both to Operations and to ships in transit
terminate operations
Operations + data
On-line monitoring
• Structure / Ship
• Environment
Ice management:
• Observe, analyse, predict, analyse -> Evaluate risk
• Risk OK – continue
• Risk not OK – mitigate
• Mitigation not possible – Disconnect
Learning from on-line monitoring
• Ice conditions during ice actions
• Structural response during ice action
• Machine learning -> Improved ice action models
Course content
Module I - Sea ice and icebergs
• Understand and quantify physical processes
Module II - Instruments, operations and monitoring
• Marine/Arctic operations
• Instruments and sensors
Module III - Ships in ice
• Design
• Operations
Specialization (10%) - either
• Ice action on structures (Part 1)
• Control of underwater vehicles ???? (Part 2)
Module I Sea ice and icebergs
Overall goal
• Combine measured data and simulations to estimate the relevant ice
properties including uncertainties and correlations
Content:
• Level ice - properties and growth
• Ice ridges - size and consolidation
• Icebergs – drift and properties
Lectures, exercises and Laboratory
Mandatory Laboratory report
Module II Instruments, operations and
monitoring
Overall goal
• Being able to measure relevant properties with appropriate temporal and
spatial resolution
Content:
• Marine Arctic Operations
• Instruments and sensors
Lectures, exercises and field work
Mandatory field work and report
• 4 days field work
• 2 x Polar circle boats
• AUV and ROVs
Module II - Report structure for field work
report
• Introduction including problem definition
• Literature and lectured theory
• Methods and experiment description including HSE work
• Results
• Discussion of method and results
• Conclusion

Common report for each group

 Module II Marine Operations –
Arctic Specifics
Introduction
Prof II Kjell Larsen
2018-08-30
Special Challenges for ARCTIC Marine Operations

• Lack of infrastructure
• Remote – distance to shore
• Low air and sea temperatures
(materials, flow in pipes, work environment)
• Ice and icing
• Visibility – summer fog.
• Darkness during winter.
• Polar lows
• Lower quality on meteorology forecast
• Communication system quality including bandwidth
• Navigation system accuracy
• Vulnerable environment and eco-systems

2018-08-30
Module II Sensors and Instruments -
Underwater operations

• Mapping and monitoring of marine

resources and environment for
governance and decision making
• Oil and gas in deep water and Arctic
• Marine biology
• Marine archeology
• Aquaculture
• Ship hull inspection
• Marine mining
• Rescue operations
• …
 ROV – Remotely Operated Vehicle
AUV – Autonomous Underwater Vehicle
USV – Unmanned Surface Vehicle
Module II - Sensor platforms and their temporal UAV – Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

and spatial resolution and coverage

100years

Satellites
10years
Small Satellites
Fixed
platform –
1 year Sonars /
lander
Gliders
Ships
1 month
Time scales

1 week

1 day
d

1 hour
UAVs

USV
1 min
AUVs

ROVs
1 sec

1 mm 1 cm 1 dm 1m 10 m 100 m 1 km 10km 100 km 1000 km 10 00

000 km

Horizontal spatial scales

 Module III: Design and operation of ships in ice
Convoys on the NSR
We will develop and analyze an ArcticMore efficient use ofconcept
transportation icebreakers;
usingmany ships prescriptive
current
sailingapproach
rules and a first-principle mission-based through the NSR at the same time in Situation can rapid become critical

convoys improves emergency response capacity

4and emergency preparedness in case of accidents
HULL STRUCTURAL DESIGN

4.1 General
4 HULL STRUCTURAL DESIGN
The method for determining the hull scantlings is based on certain assumptions concerning the
nature of the ice load on the structure. These assumptions are from full scale observations made in
SAR & Oil Spill Response
4.1 General Expected number of impacts are presented in Table 7,

Land-based and offshore (floating) infrastructure

The extreme load prediction is based on 1 % annual
the northern Baltic. where calculated impacts are rounded up to the next thousand. exceedance probability applying Eq. 4, where Eq. 1 gives α and
v is corresponds to the calculated events per year shown in
Table 7. Expected number of impacts Table 5. Exposure parameter x0 is considered to be zero, which
The method for determining the hull scantlings is based on certain assumptions concerning the Data set Operational Duration Impacts is conservative assumption and portion of true hits r is taken
It has thus been observed that the local ice pressure on small areas can reach rather high values.
to be able to respond to emergencies in time and
speed [kn] [hours/year] [events/year]
equal to 0.5. The average impact duration is, t, is assumed to be
nature of the ice load on the structure. Thesemay
This pressure assumptions
be well inareexcess
from full
of scale observations
the normal uniaxialmade in strength of sea ice. The
crushing Multi-year ice 2 1213 4000 2s.
the northern Baltic. explanation is that the stress field in fact is multiaxial.
Thick first-year ice 3 2696 10000 Additionally, design pressures calculated using IACS
Polar Class rules (2010) for plate with length of 1.8 m and
Medium and thin 9 1887 16000
stiffeners spacing from 0.3 to 0.6 m is also presented for polar

deliver needed assistance and supplies and

It has thus been observed thatFurther,
the local ice pressure
it has on small
been observed
first-year
classes PC1 to PC5. The formulae applied for the latter
Open water 18 2964
thatareas can pressure
the ice reach rather
on ahigh values.
frame can be higher than on the shell
correspond to the ship bow area plating with transverse frames.

This pressure may be well in Norvald©Kjerstad

plating at midspacing between frames. The explanation for this is The
excess of the normal uniaxial crushing strength of sea ice.
1. Individual 2. Mission-based 3. Rule-based ice the different flexural stiffness of

conduct evacuations and oil spill response from in ice

Step 5a Extreme load prediction based on simplified
explanation is that the stress field
framesin fact is multiaxial.
and shell plating. The load distribution is assumed to be as shown in figure 2. number of interactions

Local design 4. Resistance This case study A uses three different pressure area

transport scenario ice conditions class selection

relationships, e.g. for multi-year ice rams the Oden pressure
Further, it has been observed that the ice pressure on a frame can be higher than on the shell area curve is used, for thick first-year ice the MV Polar Sea

remote areas of the NSR; Arctic Council’s SAR

full-scale measurements from North Chukchi Sea are used and
plating at midspacing between frames. The explanation for this is the different flexural stiffness of for medium first-year ice the measurements in the North Bering
Sea are used.
frames and shell plating. The load distribution is assumed to be as shown in figure 2.• Results in bounding curve according to ISO 19906
Scantlings
Ice pressure and ice load agreement in 2011 and OSR agreeement in 2013 30
100year level extreme load estimation

• Can identify
Medium first year ice, [Parent distribution: North Bering Sea], floe size 100m & 1 ram per flow, 78000 rams
28 Medium first year ice, [Parent distribution: North Bering Sea], floe size 100m & 10 rams per flow, 780000 rams
Medium first year ice, [Parent distribution: North Bering Sea], floe size 250m & 1 ram per flow, 31200 rams
26 Thick first year ice, [Parent distribution:North Chukchi sea],floe size 100m & 1 ram per flow, 86000 rams
Thick first year ice, [Parent distribution:North Chukchi sea],floe size 100m & 10 rams per flow, 860000 rams

antlings •• The Figure 2 Local area effect A-0.7

design relevant ice
24 Thick first year ice, [Parent distribution:North Chukchi sea],floe size 250m & 1 ram per flow, 34500 rams
Multi year ice, [Parent distribution:Oden],floe size 100m & 1 ram per flow, 24000 rams

Theicelimit state in
pressure p isthe
nowFSICR is yield
obtained through three Ice load distribution on a ship’s side Global scale effect A-0.4
22

20
Multi year ice, [Parent distribution:Oden],floe size 100m & 10 rams per flow, 240000 rams
Multi year ice, [Parent distribution:Oden],floe size 250m & 1 ram per flow, 9600 rams
PC1, year− round operation in all Polar waters

Local Pressure [MPa]

PC2, year− round operation in moderate multi year ice conditions

• factors
The plate thickness Figure equations
2 methods may beare
For the formulae and values given in thisanalogous
section for the determination of the hull scantlings more
18

16
PC3, year− round operation in second year ice which may include multi year ice inclusion
PC4, year− round operation in thick first− year ice which may include old ice inlcusions
PC5, year− round operation in medium first year ice which may include old ice inclusions condition and ice
he limit state intothe p = c ×c
sophisticated
×c × p substituted subject to approval by the administration or the
carFSICR isclassification
yield
14

Ice load
tire pressure distribution
d 1 on
on a ship’s
a car
society. side
0 decks 12

10
class
•For
he plate thickness equations
Cthed –formulae
factor are
considering
and values given analogous
in this
If scantlings ship
section
derived
p
size
forfrom
andregulations
engine
the determination
these of thearehull
lessscantlings morerequired by the classification
than those
8

• Can understand
= s f ( h / s ) PL
sophisticated methods may2society
be substituted subject to approval by the administration
for an unstrengthened ship, the latter shall be used. or the 6

outputonsociety.
o car tire pressure cart decks
4
classification
3NB. The frame spacing s and spans defined in the following text are normally assumed to be
2

uncertainties and
If scantlings derived a ×k these
+measured
b regulations are ylessDthan× Pparallel
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
from those required by the classification
cd =pPL deviates =be from
Contact Area[m2]

ship,,thewith k 20°
Jordaan (2013)

( )
in a vertical plane to the centreline of the ship. However, if the ship's side
2society for an unstrengthened
t = •s pPLf h– /equivalent
s 1000 platelatterthan
more shall
pressureused. this plane, the frame distances and spans shall be measured along the
1000 at 0.75p Figure 7. Case study A: Predicted extreme load for the specified route and comparisons to IACS Polar class load
design ice load
3NB. The frame4. s Design
spacing ice load
side of the ship.
y and spans defined in the following text are normally assumed to be
5. Probabilistic
ice 6. Comparison of estimations
• cThe
•measured
- inframe
factor for
a vertical scantlings
ice
plane impact
parallel
4.1.1 to theare
Regions regiondetermined
centreline along the
of the ship. as
hull
However, if the ship's side
6 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

PL – equivalent plate pressure

deviates calculation
q ×s ×l at 0.75p 1.2×q ×l
load assessment
1 more than 20° from this plane, the frame distances and spans shall be measured along the
4 and 5
• ca- factorZconsidering
side of the ship.
= For the the
A of=probability
a purpose a that
1 section, the ship's
this
× hull isthe
dividedfull
into regions as follows (see also figure 3):
AT 834 (PhD - level)
Description of extended abstract / short
paper
• AT834 candidates to provide a 20 minute presentation of their
research for the class during the course
• To be written on own research related to lectured items
• 6 – 8 pages
• Straight IMRAD outline recommended
• Assessed for conference (Revise and submit if appropriate)
• Due two weeks after exam
Assessment of abstract/short paper
• Is the manuscript technically sound/could the manuscript be technically sound with
revision?
• Are the conclusions supported be the evidence presents?
• Are the additional experiments or data required to support the conclusions?
• Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties?
• References: appropriate credits given to previous work?
• Is the manuscript written clearly using standard English?