See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287678616

Refined bending failure model for the level ice acting on an inclined obstacle

Article · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

2 60

4 authors, including:

Robert Goldstein Dmitry A. Onishchenko

Russian Academy of Sciences Gazprom VNIIGAZ LLC
253 PUBLICATIONS   1,736 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   176 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rigid body motion in perfect fluid View project

Probabilistic modelling of ice actions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dmitry A. Onishchenko on 14 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proc., 18th Int. Conf. on Port and Ocean Eng. Under Arctic Conditions. Vol. 1 (2005) 199-212

REFINED BENDING FAILURE MODEL FOR THE LEVEL ICE

ACTING ON AN INCLINED OBSTACLE

R.V. Goldstein1, D.A. Onishchenko2,1, V.V. Denisov1, D.L. Shatinsky1

1
Institute for Problems in Mechanics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
2
Scientific-Research Institute of Natural Gases and Gas Technologies - VNIIGAZ, Moscow

ABSTRACT

The classical ice technology problem of bending and edge failure of the level ice field
approaching a rigid obstacle with an inclined front face is considered in a refined
setting. The problem is analyzed in quasi-static setting. The exact model with the
longitudinal-transverse bending equation for a beam on an elastic foundation is
utilized for the ice floe deformation and failure. Semi-analytical solutions are found
and compared with known approximations. The corresponding calculation within the
refined model demonstrates the increasing loading on the obstacle, as well as the
length of broken ice fragment, in comparison with earlier published results.

INTRODUCTION

Processes of an interaction of an ice floe moving upon wide obstacles with inclined
faces are as a rule accompanied by ice cover fracture in bending conditions. The
problem on searching for the loads on the obstacle in these processes is of essential
practical importance, first of all, because of the tendency to provide maximal
reduction of ice loads on the sea platforms designed for ice infested waters.
Moreover, a correct description of the mechanism of bending fracture of a floating ice
plate is absolutely needed for studying such a complex phenomenon as the formation
of an ice rubble pile ahead of an obstacle and for solving the related problem on ridge
formation. A lot of publications have been devoted to solving the problem on bending
fracture of the moving ice floe at structures having inclined faces or conic shape (see,
for example, Croasdale, 1988, Croasdale et al., 1994, Sodhi, 1987, Li et al., 2003, and
references inside for earlier publications).

199
 y

N1
u V0
h
D1

F0 H WL
A O x
Ffr,1 β

Figure 1. Problem 1 model: full contact of the ice beam with water

y
N2 T2
V0
N1
D2 W
B
u H
h Ffr,2
D1
F0 O WL
A T1 Ffr,1 a x
β

Figure2. Problem 2 model: there is no full contact of the ice beam with water

N2 V
Q2 Fa H
u
D2
B Ffr,2
F0 T2 WL
A T1 O x
W
Q1 β

Figure 3. Problem 3 model: "floating beam – ice fragment" system interaction

with an inclined obstacle

200
Different relations for computing relevant ice loads were obtained. Some of them are
included in the appropriate standards (API RP 2N, 1995, EM 1110-2-1612, 2002). In
the given paper, we performed a detailed study of a refined scenario of an interaction
of an ice floe (modeled as a beam) moving with a constant velocity over an obstacle –
inclined plane. One improvement takes into account the appearance of the
longitudinal compression force in the ice floe. In this case, the longitudinal-transverse
bending equation for a beam on an elastic foundation that describes the problem is
solved analytically. The other improvement deals with the beam end conditions at the
contact point, for which the bending moment is assumed to be non-zero. The analysis
is performed within the framework of a quasi-static approach.

The governing relations for the following three problems were obtained and studied.
Problem 1: searching for the longitudinal compression force in the ice beam (or,
equivalently, the horizontal load on the obstacle) at the moment of the first act of ice
failure in case when the beam is supported by water along its whole length (Fig. 1).
Problem 2: the same for the case when the beam emerges from water, loosing its
support, in the zone of its contact with the obstacle (the scheme is given in Figure 2).
The statement of the both problems was extended by accounting for ice fragments
pile up on the inclined obstacle face. Problem 3: searching for the ice load on the
obstacle caused by the action of the approaching "floating beam – ice fragment"
system and evaluating the longitudinal force in the beam related to formation of the
second fragment (Fig. 3).

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ON BENDING OF A FLOATING

ICE BEAM

It is well know that the mechanical behavior of the ice cover can be adequately
described by the model of the bending of a plate resting on an elastic (Winkler)
foundation. An interaction of the ice floe with an obstacle is accompanied by a
longitudinal compression force appearance in the ice plate. Hence, to study the
appropriate problems one needs to use the equations of the theory of the longitudinal
– transverse bending of the plates on an elastic foundation. To the best of our
knowledge, the first application of the corresponding equation in ice technology was
given by Shimanskii (1938) who studied the problem of an ice cover bending down
by an icebreaker hull (the brief presentation of the results obtained can be found in
the monograph by Savel'ev (1963)).

Let us give the basic equations. Consider the ice field approaching an obstacle from
the left. Choose the x-axis directed to the right, and the y-axis directed upward
(Fig. 1). For the sake of simplicity, the beam approximation will only be considered.
The resulting governing relation is written for a beam of unit width
(1) w′′′′ + k 2 w′′ + 4α 2 w = 0 ; 4α 2 = c ( EJ ) , k 2 = F0 ( EJ )

201
where the prime denotes the derivative over x; w is the vertical displacement of the
beam at a point x (further the variable w will be named as deflection; note, that the
positive value of w means the displacement upward); E is the effective modulus of ice
elasticity; J = h 3 12 is the inertia moment of the beam cross section; h is an ice floe
thickness; F0 is the longitudinal compression force (the value F0 is considered
positive). The parameter c = ρ w g (with ρw and g being the water density and the
gravitational acceleration respectively) reflects the action of the buoyancy force and
can be interpreted as the foundation modulus. Here the parameter α is related directly
with the characteristic length of the floating ice beam, A:

(2) ( )
α = 2A 2
−1
[ ]
, A = Eh 3 (12ρ w g )
14

The bending moment M(x) and the transverse force Q(x) in the cross section x are
calculated by the formulae
d 2w dM
(3) EJ = M ( x ) , Q ( x ) = .
dx 2 dx
In equation (1) the condition w = 0 is assumed for a free floating ice beam, which
draft equals
w0 = (ρice ρ w ) h
where ρice is the ice density. Equation (1) becomes incorrect if the beam is not
supported by water, i.e. when w( x) > w0 , in which case the governing equation is

(4) w ~′′ + q = 0 ; q = ρ gh .
~′′′′ + k 2 w
ice
EJ

AN ANALYSIS OF SCENARIOS OF ICE BEAM INTERACTION

WITH AN INCLINED OBSTACLE

Scenarios under consideration

Qualitatively, the initial stage of the interaction of a moving ice beam with an
inclined obstacle is subdivided on two parts. At first the ice beam makes contact with
the obstacle and the beam edge starts to move along the inclined plane generating the
bending deformation of the beam (see Figure 1; for now we assume that the rubble
pile is absent. The dotted line shows the initial beam position). The reaction force
develops at the contact point D1. This force has the normal component N1 and the
tangential component – friction force Ffr,1. A longitudinal compression force F0
simultaneously arises. Evaluation of the maximal value of the force F0 is of main
interest since it equals the horizontal component of the ice load on the obstacle.

202
In the paper, the problem is considered in the quasi-static statement. The given
horizontal displacement u is prescribed to the left edge of the beam. This edge (point
A in Figure 1) is located rather far from the obstacle. The total system is assumed to
be in static equilibrium for each value of the displacement u. Within the statement of
the problem, the compression force F0 can be interpreted as the reaction force
developing at the left edge of the beam owing to the constraint imposed in the form of
a prescribed displacement. On the other hand, one can assume instead that the force
F0 is known in the equilibrium equations. Then one can search for the appropriate
value of u. The latter algorithm is more convenient for numerical solving the
problem.

The bending deformation of the beam increases as the value u increases. Finally, the
bearing capacity of the beam will be exhausted with a transverse crack occurring,
which results in the first fragment of broken ice appearance. At that moment,
depending on the problem parameters values (first of all, ice thickness), the beam can
be supported by water along its whole length or, alternatively, can partly lose the
water support (zone OD1 of the beam in Figure 2). As it was aforementioned, the
beam bending is described by different equations in different zones. An analysis of
the first and second cases is given within the framework of Problems 1 and 2,
respectively. In the model, in addition to the basic case under consideration, one can
account for a pile of ice fragments formed earlier.

Problem 1: full contact of the ice beam with water

The model is shown in Figure 1. Denote the slope angle of the obstacle by β. Due to
the problem statement, the beam bears on the water along all the length. The given
force F0 is applied to the left end of the floating beam. Suppose additionally that a
number of ice fragments with total weight W, called below as a pile, are located on
the inclined obstacle above the advancing beam edge (for simplicity, the pile is not
shown in Figure 1; the scheme with a pile is presented in Figure 2). Choose the
coordinate origin O in such a way that the axis Oy passes through the contact point
between the beam and obstacle, D1 (Fig. 1). The governing equation for the
advancing ice beam is given by (1). Write down the boundary conditions.

Condition 1: the solution decays as the point A moves off the obstacle:
(5) w( x) → 0 as x → −∞ ;
Condition 2: the bending moment at the right end of the beam (the point D1) is,
generally, non-zero and equals to the total moment of the forces applied to this beam
section. Denote this moment by M0, then
(6) M (0) = M 0 ;

203
Condition 3: the transverse force at the right end of the beam (the point D1) is equal to
the sum of all forces applied to this beam section with reversed sign. Denote this
moment by V0, then
(7) Q(0) = −V0 .
Note, that the quantity V0 does not coincide with the total vertical load on the obstacle
if W ≠ 0 . For clarity, the notation V will be used for the latter.

Let us calculate V0 and M0. Introduce additionally the notation H for the horizontal
component of the resultant of forces acting on the right end of the beam (see
Figures 1 and 2; the positive direction for H is to the left). It follows from the beam
equilibrium condition in x direction that H = F0. Adopting the Coulomb law for ice –
obstacle friction: F fr ,1 = µN1 , F fr , 2 = µN 2 , one can find

(8) ( )
V0 = N1 cos β − T1 + F fr ,1 sin β = N1 (cos β − µ sin β) − T1 sin β ;

(9) ( )
H = N1 sin β + T1 + F fr ,1 cos β = N1 (sin β + µ cos β) + T1 cos β .

Using the equilibrium conditions for the ice pile of weight W, which is lifted up along
the obstacle, the contact (pushing) force between the advancing ice beam and the pile
(the point B in Figure 2) is found as
(10) T2 = W (sin β + µ cos β) .

Two reaction forces at the point B are numerically equal, so T1 = T2 . If express N1

from (9), then substitute it into (8) and, finally, take into account (10), the following
formula for V0 can be obtained:
cos β − µ sin β
(11) V0 = H −W .
sin β + µ cos β
If introduce the notation ϕ = arctan µ , then rather simple, however, very important
relation follows from (11):
(12) F0 = (V0 + W ) tan(β + ϕ) .
This relation gives the necessary condition, being actual for the case W = 0 as well,
that the scenario of beam bending due to the right beam end sliding up the obstacle be
possible:
(13) β+ϕ< π 2.
Otherwise, the bending fracture scenario could not be realized because of ice
jamming (see also Croasdale et al., 1994) that leads to ice loads of essentially higher
values. Furthermore, on basis of the simple analysis of the equilibrium problem for

204
the joint "ice beam – pile" system resting with friction on an inclined plane, one can
deduce that the total vertical load on the obstacle V is equal to
V = V0 + W = F0 tan(β + ϕ) .

In order to calculate the value of the end moment M0, assume now that the contact
point between the advancing ice beam and the nearest fragment of the pile is located
on the top surface of the beam (the point B in Figure 2). Then, taking into account the
above derived relations for the quantities T1, Ffr,1, N1 , it is possible to write down
(14) M 0 = [− F0 + 2 cos β(sin β + µ cos β ) W ] h / 2 .

Proceed now with solving the linear differential equation (1) with boundary
conditions (5)-(7). Under the constraint
(15) k 2 < 4α
all the four roots of the appropriate characteristic equation are complex numbers and
can be expressed in the form λ = ±ω1 ± iω2 , where

(16) ω1 = α − k 2 4 , ω2 = α + k 2 4 .
Condition (15) can be rewritten as

(17) F0 < 2 cEJ = ρ w gh 3 E / 3

where the quantity in the right hand side equals exactly the compression force critical
value which is related to the elastic buckling of a rather long floating beam (API RP
2N, 1995, EM 1110-2-1612, 2002):
Fb = κρw gA 2 ,

where κ = 2 when one or both ends of the beam are either rigid or hinged. Note that
this is in conform with the ice jamming case.

If inequality (15) holds, the general solution of equation (1)

w( x) = e ω1x (C1 sin(ω2 x) + C 2 cos(ω2 x) ) + e − ω1x (C3 sin(ω2 x) + C4 cos(ω2 x) )
subject to decay condition (5), becomes
(18) w( x) = e ω1x (C1 sin(ω2 x) + C2 cos(ω2 x) ) .
Boundary conditions (6) and (7) together with formulae (3) allow one to find
constants C1 and C2:

C1 =
( 2 2
)
ω1 3ω2 − ω1 M 0 + ω2 − ω1 V0 ( 2 2
) C2 =
(3ω
1
2 2
)
− ω2 M 0 + 2ω1 V0
( ) (ω )
(19) 2
, 2
.
ω2 ω2 + ω1 + ω1
2 2 2 2
EJ 2 EJ

205
Substituting expressions (19) in relation (18), find from formulae (3):
(20) M ( x) = e ω1x [M 0 ω2 cos(ω2 x) − M 0 ω1 sin(ω2 x) − V0 sin(ω2 x)] ω2 .

The coordinate of the beam cross section, x*, where the bending moment (and stresses
on the beam surfaces as well) achieves the maximal value is the nearest to x = 0 root
of the equation dM ( x) dx = 0 . It is possible to show that

1 ⎛ ω2V0 ⎞
(21) x* = − arctan⎜ ⎟.
ω2 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ω1V0 + (ω1 + ω2 ) M 0 ⎠
2 2

Note, that in earlier presented solutions (Shimanskii, 1938, Hetenyi, 1946, Croasdale
et al., 1994, API RP 2N, 1995, EM 1110-2-1612, 2002) the location of the fracture
point x* has been determined approximately under the assumptions M0 = 0 and
ω1 = ω2 = α .

Let us find now the condition for the compression force F0 at the limit state. The limit
state is defined as
σb ( x* ) = σ f

where σb is the tensile stress on the bottom surface of the beam, and σf is the flexural
strength of the ice. In the problem under consideration, σb is the sum of the bending
stress (due to M(x*)) and compression stress (due to F0). Therefore, the following
algebraic equation needs to be satisfied for the compression force F0 (the horizontal
load on the obstacle) at the first act of fracture
(22) 6M ( x* ) h 2 − F0 h = σ f .

In this equation the value M(x*) depends on F0 in a very complicated way, since all
the quantities V0 and M0 (see (11) and (14)), ωi and Ci (see (16) and (19)), and also x*
(see (21)) in turn depend on F0. However, the explicit expressions are obtained for all
of these variables, so numerical solving equation (22) is not very difficult. Below
some result will be presented.

To conclude the analytical study of Problem 1, the approximate solution will be

obtained under the following simplifying assumptions. Let, first, the compression
force F0 in the limit state be essentially lower as compared to the buckling value Fb,
and, second, M0 = 0. Then ω1 ≈ ω2 ≈ α and

(23) ( ) (
x * ≈ − π 4 α = − 2π 4 A . )
If using relation (11) find M(x*) through (20) and further substitute it into (22), then it
becomes possible to solve the equation obtained with respect to F0:

206
 −1
⎛ σ f h 2e π 4 ⎞⎛ he π 4 ⎞
(24) F (1)
=⎜ + W ⎟⎜⎜1 − tan(β + ϕ) ⎟⎟ tan(β + ϕ) .
0 ⎜ 6A ⎟
⎝ ⎠⎝ 6A ⎠
If additionally suppose that the maximal stress in the beam is only slightly influenced
by the longitudinal compression force, then the second multiplier in above relation
(24) can be replaced with unity:
⎛ σ f h 2e π 4 ⎞
(25) F ( 2)
=⎜ + W ⎟ tan(β + ϕ) .
0 ⎜ 6A ⎟
⎝ ⎠

Note, that the derived within the presented model approximate formulae (24) and (25)
are not identical to the similar ones obtained earlier (Croasdale et al., 1994, API RP
2N, 1995, EM 1110-2-1612, 2002). For instance, formula (25) coincides with one
given by Croasdale et al. (1994) under the condition W = 0, i.e. with no ice pile, while
being somewhat different if W ≠ 0 . The difference increases with the decreasing of
the slope angle β. The clarification of such a discrepancy would be useful from the
methodological point of view, however, such an analysis is beyond the scope of the
present paper.

Problem 2 : there is no full contact of the ice beam with water

In this scenario a certain part of the beam is in no contact with water: w(x) > w0
(Fig. 2). Set the coordinate origin O at the point where water - beam contact
disappears. Try to find such a solution that in zone I (x < 0) the beam behavior
governs by previously used equation (1), while in zone II (x > 0) its behavior governs
by the equation (4) of longitudinal-transverse bending under the action of the dead
weight q = ρice gh . For convenience, mark the quantities related to zone II with tilde
symbol.

Write down the boundary conditions. Again, the solution must decay at x → −∞ . At
the right end of the beam, which now has the coordinate x = a, a > 0 with an unknown
value a, the conditions similar to those used above in Problem I need to be hold:
~ ~
(26) M ( a ) = M 0 , Q ( a ) = −V0
where the quantities M0 and V0 are defined by (14) and (11). Further, as long as there
are no external lumped forces and moments at the point O, the quantities of beam
deflection, slope angle, bending moment, and transverse force need to be continuous
functions of the coordinate x. Thus, the matching conditions of the solutions in zones
I and II have the following form:
~ ~
(27) w(0) = w ~ (0) = w , dw(0) = dw(0) , M (0) = M~
( 0 ) , Q ( 0) = Q ( 0 ) .
0
dx dx

207
Here the deflection at the point x = 0 is known due to the choice of the point O
location and equals w0.

Describe in brief the algorithm for solving the stated problem. Assign a certain value
to F0. Taking in mind the decay condition at x → −∞ , find that the general solution
for zone I is given by relation (18) with two uncertain coefficients C1 and C2, values
ω1, ω2 being dependent on the longitudinal force F0. As for zone II, the general
solution w ~ ( x) of linear differential equation (4) includes four uncertain coefficients
~
C j , j = 1,..., 4 . Besides, the quantity a is unknown as well. Finally, we have 7
algebraic equations arising from conditions (26) and (27) for searching for 7
~ ~ ~ ~
unknowns C1 , C 2 , C1 , C 2 , C3 , C 4 , a . All the equations are linear with respect to
~
C i , C j . Excluding these quantities, one obtains a nonlinear algebraic equation with
respect to unknown a, which can be solved numerically.

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF NUMERIC CALCULATIONS

In order to perform numeric analysis of Problems 1 and 2 we have chosen the

following values of the parameters: E = 2.30 GPa, µ = 0.2, σf = 1.0 MPa (some
typical values were chosen since all the parameters have significant static variability
(Petrov, 1976, EM 1110-2-1612, 2002). The values for the ice thickness were varied
from 0.1 to 3.0 m. The pile of the ice fragments was characterized using its combined
length Lr = W (ρ ice gh ) . The value of the slope angle of the given plane was chosen
as β = 60°. The calculations were performed using Maple math software.

The plots of the dependence of the ice load experienced by the obstacle during the
formation of the initial fragment on the ice thickness, i.e. when Lr = 0 are shown in
Figure 4. In the case of plot y3 the full model (Problems 1 and 2) was employed, in
which the value of the edge moment M0 was calculated using formula (14). When the
ice thickness was h < 0.2 m, the right beam edge was found emerging from water. In
that case, the solution was obtained using Problem 2 as a model, whereas for the large
values of the ice thickness Problem 1 was applied. Graphs y1 and y2 correspond to the
approximate analytical solution of Problem 1 defined by formulae (25) and (24).
Interestingly, in the case of significant ice thickness (h ~ 2-3 m) the values (y1)
calculated using the full model are 20-25% bigger then the corresponding values
found for M0 = 0.

The approximate value of compression load F0 can be found according to formula

(25): F0( 2) = y3 ~ h1.25 . Graphs y3 and y2 can also be approximated with a high
precision using power functions as well, however with altering exponents (Fig. 4),
i.e. y1 ~ h1.340 , y 2 ~ h1.279 . Thus, accounting for the edge moment in the model of

208
interaction of the ice field with the inclined obstacle has not only quantitative but also
qualitative impact.

0,6
y 3 = 0,122x 1,340

0,4
F 0, MN/m

y 2 = 0,0996x 1,279
M 0≠0
0,2 M 0=0
1,250
y 1 = 0,0914x

0,0
0 1 2 3
h,m

Figure 4. Ice load versus ice thickness for the full and approximate models

We were also interested in the length of the formed ice fragment. The corresponding
graphs for the full (21) and approximate (23) models as well as a graph of a
characteristic length (2) are shown in Figure 5. The calculations have demonstrated
that the full model predicts slightly bigger length for the fragments formed during the
initial interaction of the ice floe with the inclined obstacle compare to the
approximating model (on average 15% bigger). At the same time, the exponents in
the power expression approximating the full model coincide with that found for the
approximate analytical solution as 3/4.

40
characteristic y = 14.88x 0.774
30 length
approximate
solution
lbr , m

20

10

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
h, m
Figure 5. First fragment length versus ice thickness
for the full and approximate models

209
Within the presented approach, the study of the problem of the searching for the ice
load from the system "unbroken ice floe – fragment" can be performed (Problem 3),
assuming the pin joint at the point of first cracking (Fig. 3). Because of limited size of
the paper, there is no opportunity to describe the corresponding scenario and
computation algorithm in details. A resulted graph for the relation "ice load F0 –
approaching u" for the ice thickness of h = 1 m will be only presented in Figure 6.
Points 1 and 2 correspond the system states just before and immediately after the first
act of fracture (the length of the first formed fragment is 14.8 m). Note that the
system experiences unloading at this moment. Point 3 shows the moment of the
second act of fracture (for research purposes calculations were further carried out
with the large values of u.). Note, that the fracture point was again found in the
floating beam which at this stage of the interaction with the obstacle was bent down.
The length of the second fragment was found to be equal to 13.2 m. Maximum values
of the loads experienced by the obstacle at points 1 and 3 were almost identical. In the
future, we are planning to investigate whether this coincidence was accidental.

0,16 3
1 3 h=1m
0,12 h=2m
F 0, MN/m

2
F0, MN/m

h=3m
0,08
2 1
0,04

0,00 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 4 8 12
u, m L r, m

Figure 6. Model loading diagram for Figure 7. Ice load versus pile size
the initial stage of floating beam – for the full model (Problem 1)
inclined obstacle interaction

According to the actual observations and to the model experiments the length of the
formed ice fragments is significantly smaller than the values predicted from the
various models of bending fracture of the floating beams (for example see EM 1110-
2-1612, 2002, Li et al., 2003). The length of the fragments varies from 4 to 8 ice
thicknesses. However, this is a result of different destruction mechanisms operating
during the later stages of interactions of the ice floe with the inclined obstacle.
Whereas presented in this work model studies only initial stage of this process.

Finally, Figure 7 demonstrates the calculated dependence of the load experienced by

the obstacle on the ice pile size. The latter is described via a combined length Lr of
the fragments being pushed upwards. For comparison, we have marked with ∆

210
the values, which were calculated using the approximated model (25) for the ice
thickness h = 3 m. These values were found to be 25% smaller compared to those
obtained from the full model.

It is necessary to note that observed phenomena of a secondary fracture in the beam

via downward bending generally prevents implementing mechanism in which the ice
field approaching the inclined obstacle pushes a “caravan” of the ice fragments on top
of the obstacle (for example see Croasdale et al., 1994). However, it is possible that
“caravan” scenario, which is traditionally used to estimate the load experienced by
the structure with the inclined planes, can be implemented after formation of the
rubble pile in front of the obstacle. In this case, submerged ice fragments provide
additional support for the yet unbroken ice floe. Possibly, this will allow the ice floe
to maintain its bearing capacity and to prevent its fracture caused by downward
bending. Further investigations of this analysis are certainly required.

CONCLUSION

A refined beam model of bending fracture of ice cover affecting an inclined obstacle
was developed. An influence of a longitudinal compression force is accounted for in
an explicit form by using the theory of longitudinal-transverse bending. The model
admits the effective semi-analytical and numerical study. Some qualitative effects
were separated and described. In particular, the performed model computations show
that
− there exists a possibility of raising the ice field edge from the water in the
zone of its contact with the obstacle. Modeling of this effect needs solving
the problem on bending of the ice beam with two types of the governing
equation;
− the formation of the second fragment under the bending of the ice field
edge down is observed;
− the ice load values obtained within earlier published simplified models are
about 25 % lower in comparison with the appropriate values found
according to the presented refined model.

Note in conclusion that of large interest is the statement and the study of the problem
in case when the bending strength σf is treated as a random quantity. It is well known
that, together with other ice strength characteristics, σf is statistically changeable and
scale dependent (Petrov, 1976, EM 1110-2-1612, 2002). Introducing these features
into the model can essentially affect the position of the breaking point and the
required force F0 as well. Further, it seems that the dynamic aspect is also important
in the problem of ice cover bending fracture, including the 'jamming' effect (13).
Without taking account for the compression force, and under the assumption that
M0 = 0, this problem was studied by Sodhi (1987).

211
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The paper was supported by the Program of the President of the Russian Federation
for supporting leading scientific schools (grant NSh 1849.2003.1).

REFERENCES

API RP 2N (1995) Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing

Structures and Pipelines for Arctic Conditions, American Petroleum Institute.
Croasdale, K.R. (1988) Ice forces: Current practices. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Offshore
Mech. and Arctic Eng., Houston, Vol. 4, pp. 133-151.
Croasdale, K.R., Cammaert A.B, and Metge M. (1994) A method for the calculation
of sheet ice loads on sloping structures. Proc. IAHR Symposium on Ice,
Trondheim, Norway, Vol. 2, pp. 874-881.
EM 1110-2-1612 (2002) Engineering and Design – Ice Engineering. US Army Corps
of Engineers, URL http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals.
Hetenyi, M. (1946) Beams on Elastic Foundation. The University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Li, F., Yue, Q., Shkhinek, K.N., Kärnä, T.A. (2003) A qualitative analysis of
breaking length of sheet ice against conical structure. Proc. 17th Int. Conf.
Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions.
Petrov, I.G. (1976) Choice of the most probable values of ice mechanical properties.
In: Structure and physical and mechanical properties of ice. Trans. AARI,
Vol. 331, Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat, pp. 4-41 (in Russian).
Savel'ev, B.A. (1963) Structure, composition, and properties of the ice cover of seas
and freshwater basins. Moscow University Press (in Russian).
Shimanskii, Yu.A. (1938) Relative indicators of ship ice quality. Trans. Arctic
Scientific Research Institute GUSMP, Vol. 130 (in Russian).
Sodhi, D.S. (1987) Dynamic analysis of failure modes on ice sheets encountering
sloping structures. Proc. 6th Int. Offshore Mech. and Arctic Eng. Symposium.
ASME, United Eng. Center, N.-Y., Vol. IV, pp. 281-284.

212

View publication stats