Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures – Amdahl, Ehlers & Leira (Eds)

© 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00059-9

Ship-ice collision analysis to define ice model according to

the IACS Polar Rule

M.J. Kwak, J.H. Choi, O.J. Hwang & Y.T. Oh

Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co., LTD, Korea

ABSTRACT: Nowadays, the exploration and development of Arctic region are getting more active than ever
before due to the increasing demands for oil and gas supplies. There is a need for large crude oil tankers to
transport the oil that will be produced from these far northern locations. For the safety of hull structure, the
interaction between ship and ice is a critical issue to be settled for the safe sailing in Arctic region. However
the behaviors of a sea ice are very complicated to define reliable mechanical model since there are various
characteristics corresponding to its age and temperature. Recently, unified the IACS Polar Rule was released
to provide standard design guidance for Arctic Vessel. Despite that, many research activities are performed to
define ice mechanical properties for reliable ship-ice collision analysis. For reliable ship-ice collision analysis,
the definition of mechanical properties of ice is very important. In this study, ship-ice collision analyses were
performed to find the proper ice model which can describe ice failure feature such as crushing and flexural
phenomenon and resultant contact force complying with design ice force of IACS Polar Rule.

1 INTRODUCTION

Vast reservoirs of oil and gas are expected to be

exploited in the Russian Arctic region including the
Barents, the Pechora and the Kara Sea. There is a need
for large crude oil tankers to transport the oil that will
be produced from these far northern locations. There-
fore, the interests for arctic vessel have been increased
recently. However, sailing in the Arctic area is more
difficult than in the mild climate area since there are
many things to overcome, such as ice load and cold
temperatures.
Many engineering activities had been carried out
to predict reliable ice load based on clear defini-
tion of the ice features for Arctic vessels. But they Figure 1. Analysis methods for determination of ice model.
reached slightly different conclusion on design method
because they do not have a standard rule. Finally, uni-
fied the IACS Polar Rule was released to provide for structural assessment of 107k DSME STD Arctic
standard design guidance. In the IACS Polar Rule, the Tanker considering the ice collision was suggested by
ice load that links with collision scenario of glancing the ultimate limit sate and in addition, by some numer-
ice is defined. ical simulation in time domain. However, it was found
Many ship owners are worrying about hull safety that there still remains some difference from IACS
due to ship-ice collision as accidental event and requir- Polar Rule.
ing reliable assessment of ship-ice collision analysis In this paper, works achieved form previous stud-
considering dynamic effect although Arctic Rules pro- ies were more highlighted. In performing the collision
vide the design methods. For reliable ship-ice collision analysis to find the ice mechanical properties based on
analysis, the definition of ice mechanical properties is IACS Polar Rule, two simulations were conducted as
very important. In IACS Polar Rule, the crushing and shown in Figure 1.
bending modes of ice failure are considered to simplify In 1st simulation, rigid hull structure & ice colli-
the failure phenomenon of sea ice. sion analysis was performed to find ice model which
DSME conducted some engineer activities to can describe ice failure feature such as crushing and
understand the IACS Polar Rule in the view point of flexural phenomenon and resultant contact force com-
hull structure (Kwak et al. 2009) in which the method plying with design ice force of IACS Polar Rule since

205
Figure 2. Design scenario of IACS Polar Rule.
hull deflection was ignored to calculate ice load in
IACS Polar Rule. After determined ice model, flexible
hull structure & ice collision analysis was addition-
ally performed to evaluate response of ice and hull
structure.
Before ship-ice collision simulation, non-linear
analysis was conducted to verify accuracy of hull
structure against ice load considering plastic limit
state.
2 THE DEFINITION OF ICE MODEL
The Polar Rule bases the ice loads on a specific design
scenario. The design scenario is a glancing collision on
the shoulders of the bow as shown in Figure 2. The ice
load is derived from the solution of an energy based on
collision model, where kinetic energy equation is equal
to ice crushing energy. This means that hull structure is
assumed as rigid structure. This theory was supported
by various studies, including numerical method, model
test, ship trial and experiment data, Daley (2000).
And the parameters, such as ice thickness, ship
speed, hull form, are considered based on class level,
and these are described in the IACS Polar Rule.
The rule scenario is strictly valid only for the bow
region, and for the stern of double-acting ships. In
order to produce a balanced structural design, loads
on other hull areas are set as a proportion of the bow
area by using empirical hull area factors (AF). The ice
load is derived for an oblique collision on the bow.
The ice load model assumes a ‘Popov’ type of colli-
sion. The force is found by equating the normal kinetic
energy (left side in Eq. (1)) with ice crushing energy
(right side in Eq. (1)) as shown below:
where δ = normal ice penetration; Fn = normal force;
Me = effective mass; and Vn = normal velocity.
The maximum force can be found by equating the
normal kinetic energy with the energy used to crush
the ice. The ice crushing force cannot exceed the force
required to fail the ice in bending. The combination of
206
Figure 3. Design load cases.
angles, ice strength and thickness determine the force
limit due to bending as shown in Eq. 2.
where hice = ice thickness m; σ f = ice flexural strength
MPa.
In this paper, ice model was defined to include
above mentions.
3 STRENGTH VERIFICATION
Before ship-ice collision analysis, accuracy of hull
structure was verified through the non-linear analysis.
In the IACS Polar Rules, the design methods are
based on plastic capacity of the plate and stiffeners
along with a conservative design loads. For example,
there should be two load cases considered for trans-
verse frame in the ice belt, which are symmetric load
case and asymmetric load case to design the ship struc-
ture against ice load, Kendrick & Daley (2000), IACS
(2007).
Symmetric loading states that ice load is applied at
mid-span and the second load case is reflecting that
the load is concentrated at the end of frames. Figure 3
shows the cases of symmetric and asymmetric load
case.
The limit state in the IACS Polar Class Rule rep-
resents a capacity comparable to that labeled “mecha-
nism 1” that called design limit state in Figure 4. Prior
to mechanism 1, the load-deflection curve is essen-
tially linear and follows the slope of the original elastic
trend. Yielding occurs well before mechanism 1. This
is followed by the expansion of the plastic zone, during
which stress redistribution takes place. Further along
this curve, additional mechanisms can occur, including
buckling and fracture as shown at mechanism 2.
This mechanism was validated through the compar-
ison study between experiment results and nonlinear
analysis, Kendrick & Daley (2000), Daley et al. (2007),
Kwak et al. (2009) .
Figure 4. Structural behavior mechanism.

Figure 6. Load & deflection curve for nonlinear analysis.

considering corrosion margin. The details of structure

members are given below:
Shell plate = 37 mm
Transverse frame = 500 × 35 mm
Longi.-stiffener = 1100 × 31 + 275 × 31 mm

For boundary condition, aft end of the FE model

Figure 5. FE model and boundary condition for nonlinear was constrained longitudinally and symmetric condi-
analysis. tion was applied to centerline elevation due to the half
model. Also, the connections of deck and main frame,
Table 1. Ice load Information. deck and shell plate were constrained vertically.
The nonlinear FE analysis was performed using
Patch Value Unit load patch in Table 1.
As a result of the analysis, load – deflection curve
Width of patch 4.328 m was obtained as shown in Figure 6. The ice patch load
Height of patch 0.675 m in Table 1 is found at around mechanism 1 described
Area 2.863 m2 in Figure 3. It means that the bow structure has enough
Force 19.200 MN strength under ice load defined in the IACS Polar Class
Patch pressure 6.720 Mpa
Rule.

4 SHIP-ICE COLLISION ANALYSIS

3.1 Nonlinear analysis
DSME STD Arctic Tanker (107k) was selected as
target vessel. The hull structure of target vessel was
initially designed based on CSR rule for the open sea
operation and the IACS Polar Rule (PC4) for the Arctic
operation. In this paper, strength verification against
ice load was only mentioned.
The ship’s main dimensions are shown below:
Length = 250 m
Breadth = 44 m
Draft = 14 m
Block coefficient = 0.8
To carry out the strength analysis for bow struc-
ture (Figure 5), the ice patch load was calculated
based on the IACS Polar Rule (PC4) and the ice load
information is as shown in Table 1.
Transverse frames were added to reinforce the bow
area against ice load in initial design stage. The thick-
nesses of structures in FE model are net-scantling
Actually, the ship-ice collision analyses done before
were conducted in DSME, Han et al. (2008) to evaluate
the hull safety and CCS of LNGc against the ice load
but these analyses were not based on IACS Polar Rule.
In this paper, two ship-ice collision analyses with
level ice were performed using MSC.Dytran based on
IACS Polar Rule after strength verification of target
vessel.
At first simulation, collision force obtained from
the numerical simulation was compared with design
ice load and properties of ice were iteratively adjusted
in order to derive proper mechanical property of ice
which can describe the ice failure feature and proper
ice load. Also, responses of hull structure and ice were
evaluated at second ship-ice collision analysis.
4.1 Assumption
For these analyses, some concepts and assumption
were reflected to save effort and conduct the analysis
effectively.

207
 Since time step size is usually controlled by the
smallest element size over all elements in the ship-
ice collision simulation using explicit code, such as
MSC.Dytran, the modeling of ship and level ice is
very important for stable computation. In these analy-
ses, the microscopic failure for ice was ignored since it
needs the very small size element that can require too
small time step. Actually, mesh size of ice will affect
the ice failure mode under ship-ice collision. However,
the simulation of microscopic failure is not critical
for the calculation of collision force and therefore
macroscopic ice failure mode was only applied.
Based on MSC handbook, MSC (2006), 10−6 time
step is recommended for explicit simulation. In these
analyses, the mesh size was set such that time step is
more than 10−6 level in this analysis.
Also, the partial FE model for bow structure and
ice was used to avoid too much analysis time due to Figure 7. The simulation model for bow structure (rigid) &
the unnecessary element. Besides, to reflect the real ice.
situation, the ice model and bow structure was given
Table 2. The values for calculation of ice load.
symmetric boundary condition.
The mass of ship included added mass factor (1.1) Content Symbol Value
to take into account surrounding fluid effect in bow
collision. Ice pressure (at 1 m2 ) [MPa] Po 2.45
And the level ice thickness was 3.5 m and collision Ship mass [kton] ship 126.5
velocity was 2.5 m/s according to the background of Ship velocity [m/s] Vship 2.5
class factor in the IACS Polar Rule (PC4). Shape coefficient (minimum) fa1 0.29
fa2 0.19
fa3 0.6
4.2 Collision analyses
Sea ice has various characteristics by age and temper-
ature and its behavior is very complicated to describe (2010). However, the values of elastic modulus, fail-
mathematically. At present the failure mechanism of ure stress and yield stress were adjusted to meet the
ice is not fully understood and not clearly defined. The collision force defined the IACS Polar Rule formula
crushing and bending mode of ice failure are consid- in the collision analysis between rigid bow structure
ered to simplify the sea ice failure mode in the IACS and ice. These re-defined mechanical properties of ice
Polar Rule. The ice characteristics were considered were used to evaluate response of hull structure and
according to the IACS Polar Rule for the ship-ice colli- ice in collision analysis between flexible bow structure
sion in this study. In the IACS Polar Rule, flexibility of and ice.
hull structure is not considered to derive the ice load.
Therefore, in this numerical simulation, there were two 4.2.1 Rigid bow structure & ice
types of collision cases as below. As described above, the rigid bow structure & ice
collision analysis was performed to find the proper
– 1st Simulation: Rigid bow structure and ice
mechanical properties of ice which can make similar
(Without flexibility of hull structure)
collision force to that calculated by the IACS Polar
– 2nd Simulation: Flexible bow structure and ice
Rule.
collision analysis (Responses of hull structure
The rigid bow structure model was used, as the
and ice).
absorbed energy of hull is ignored in the calculation
The rigid bow structure and ice was used to identify of ice load in the IACS Polar Rule. Figure 7 shows the
the appropriate mechanical properties of ice reflecting rigid bow structure and ice FE model.
failure phenomenon, which was validated by compar- Ice load defined in the IACS Polar Rule was cal-
ison with collision force defined by the ICAS Polar culated to consider the crushing and flexural failure
Rule. of ice and the rule formula of ice force was as shown
The elastic behavior of ice should be characterized below:
by moderate anisotropy and its mechanical property
varies widely depending on age, salinity and tempera-
ture. However, ice material was assumed to be isotropic
for this numerical simulation. Elastic modulus and In Equation 3, the values to calculate ice force are
Poisson’s ratio are 6.25 GPa and 0.33 respectively. as shown in Table 2.
Also, as a failure criterion of ice, the compressive The crushing force is 28.9 MN when fa1 is used for
stress of 8 MPa was used based on ISO 19906, ISO calculation of ice load in Rule. The fa2 is flexural term

208
Table 3. Analysis cases for calculating crushing force.
Elastic modulus Failure stress
Cases (MPa) (MPa)
A 6250 8
B 625 8
C 625 45
D 6250 400
Figure 8. The description of calculation for normal force.
and fa3 is the limiting case of the crushing equation.
In the IACS Polar Rule, the minimum value (0.19) is
used to calculate the final ice force (18.9 MN), which
means that ice force depends on the combination of
crushing and flexural term and calculated ice load will
be limited by flexural failure.
Firstly, the collision analysis between rigid bow
structure and ice was conducted to investigate crushing
term only. To find the appropriate mechanical property
of ice only for crushing force, some analysis cases
were carried out with adjusting the elastic modulus
and failure stress of ice as shown in Table 3.
Collision force should be transformed into normal
force in order to compare with IACS Polar Rule since
the collision force from FE result was calculated in the
direction as shown on Figure 8.
As shown on Figure 9, the ice force is increasing
with time since contact area is widened gradually. The
ice load for Case C and Case D were above the ice force
defined in rule formula. According to the IACS Polar
Rule, normal penetration depth (δ) can be calculated
using Eq. (4) and Eq. (5) below which is about 1.5 m,
and the normal speed of ship is 0.74 m/s according
to rule formula. Therefore, the flexural phenomenon
will occur within 2∼3 second. Figure 10 shows the
contact geometry and parameters which were applied
in Eq. (4) and Eq. (5). Also, Table 4 shows values of
contact geometry parameters.
209
Figure 9. Results of crushing forces for analysis cases.
Figure 10. Contact geometry during collision with an ice
edge.
Table 4. The values for contact geometry parameters.
Symbol Value Unit
W 5.77 m
H 3.32 m
δ 1.45 m2
β 60.32 deg
φ 90 deg
where W = Width of the nominal contact area;
H = Height of the nominal contact area; δ = Normal
penetration depth; β = normal frame angle; and
φ = Ice edge angle.
It was assumed that the flexural failure occurred in
approximately 3 seconds considering the initial gap
between ship and ice and reduced velocity due to col-
lision. The properties corresponding to Case C were
selected to consider crushing failure of ice.
As a second step of the analysis, the very small truss
elements between solid elements of ice were used to
consider the flexural failure. The solid element which
had the mechanical property of Case C was locally
crushable during the ship-ice collision, and global flex-
ural phenomenon of ice which breaks the connection
of solid elements could be simulated by truss element
simultaneously due to collision force on the contacted
 Figure 13. The FE model for Hull structure (Flexible
material) & Ice.

Table 5. FE model data.

Figure 11. Simulated ice failure mode (Crushing & Flexural
Failure). Type Element NO. Node NO.

Ship Shell 102590 100880

Beam 5938
Ice Solid 34270 62964
Truss 26133
Total 142798 163844

Rupture strain depending on the steel grade for the

bow structure was determined as below, NTS (2004):
Mild 0.2 (20%)
HT 32 0.167 (16.7%)
HT 36 0.15 (15%)
Also, Cowper-Symonds rate enhancement formula
was used to consider strain rate as follows:

where D and P = Constant in the Cowper-Symonds

Figure 12. Comparative ice forces of two ice models.
area. Figure 11 shows the broken ice due to crushing
and flexural phenomenon.
Some parameters such as failure strain or yield
stress for truss element were adjusted, but elastic mod-
ulus of truss element was same as the solid element.
The analysis results are shown in Figure 12.
4.2.2 Flexible bow structure & ice
To investigate the hull structure response (bow struc-
ture) during the ship-ice collision, flexible bow struc-
ture that includes the strain rate and plastic property
was used.
enhancement formula.
The applied values of D and P are 40.4 and 5 for
mild steel, and 3200 and 5 respectively for HT steel.
The ice model from the rigid bow structure & ice
was used to perform this simulation as well.
FE model for target vessel was constructed by
3-node or 4-node shell element and beam elements.
As described above, only half of the bow structure was
modeled but mass of ship was fully applied in order to
realize the kinematic energy of the whole ship.
The FE model and data for collision analysis are
shown in Figure 13 and Table 5.
In this collision analysis, ice force is a little
different from the rigid bow structure-ice collision
analysis. It may be inferred that different structure
response between rigid and flexible structure occurred
as the flexible structure can absorb the kinematic
energy. Therefore, the collision force from the flexible
bow structure-ice collision was lower than rigid bow

210
Figure 14. Comparison rigid bow structure & flexible bow
structure (contact force).
Figure 15. Results of plastic strain & deformed shape.
structure-ice collision analysis as shown in Figure 14.
Also, flexural failure of ice does not occur.
As a result, the failure strain appeared at the shell
plate as shown in Figure 15 since the patch area was
smaller than rule patch. The patch size was about 2.1 m
deep and 3.4 m wide in approximately 3 seconds after
the collision in this simulation and the size of rule
patch defined the IACS Polar Rule is 3.31 m deep and
5.75 m wide as shown in Table 4. It means that the pres-
sure applied to the structure of ship in this simulation
was larger than Rule value in the light of similar colli-
sion force but smaller patch size. Figure 16 shows the
comparison results of relationship pressure & contact
area between simulations and Rule.
As shown in this figure, loading per area in sim-
ulation of flexible bow structure is much higher than
that of the Rule value. Accordingly, to define ice model
based on IACS Polar Rule, it was one of key points that
relationship between pressure and contact area should
come close to IACS Polar Rule.
211
Figure 16. Relationship between pressure and contact area.
5 CONCLUSION
In this paper, the mechanical properties of ice were
investigated to determine the ice model using the rigid
bow structure based on IACS Polar Rule.
By the determined ice model from the collision
analysis between ice & rigid bow structure based
on IACS Polar Rule, the ice failure modes such as
crushing and flexural failure could be described and,
resultant contact force, which is well complied with
design ice load of Rule could be obtained.
However, in the collision analysis for flexible bow
structure & ice, unacceptable failure strain computed
on bow structure, even though the hull structure had
been verified by non-linear FE analysis mentioned in
section 3. Besides, as shown in Figure 16, the loading
per area above the design load of Rule was computed.
Accordingly, to define ice model based on IACS
Polar Rule, it was one of key points that relationship
between pressure and contact area should come close
to IACS Polar Rule.
In the evaluation for structural & ice response analy-
sis based on FEA, the ice mechanical property should
be defined considering not only collision force but
also penetration depth which had an effect on relation-
ship between pressure & area in performing ship-ice
collision simulation complying with the IACS Polar
Rule.
REFERENCES
Daley, C. 2000. Background Notes to Design Ice loads:
Memorial University.
Daley, C.; Hermanski, G.; Pavic, M. & Hussein,A. 2007. Ulti-
mate Strength of Frames and Grillages Subject to Lateral
Loads – an Experimental Study: Faculty of Enginner-
ing, Memorial University, Institute for Ocean Technology,
NRC, BMT Fleet Technology Limited, 10th International
Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other
Floating Structures Houston, Texas.
Han, S.; Lee J.Y.; Park Y.I. and Che J. 2008. Structural
Risk Analysis of an NO96 membrane-type Liquified
Natural Gas Carrier in Baltic Ice Operation. Journal of
Engineering for the Maritime Environment 222 Part M:
179–194.
International Associate of Classification Societies (IACS),
‘Requirements concerning POLAR CLASS’, IACS,
2007.
International Organization for Standardiztion (ISO), ISO
19906, ISO, 2010.
Kendrick, A. & Daley, C. 2000. Derivation and use of
formulations for framing design. AMARK Inc., Daley
R&E.
212
Kwak, M. J.; Choi, J. H.; Park, J. H. & Woo, J. H.
Strength Assessment for Bow Structure of Arctic Tanker
(107k) under Ship-Ice Interaction. Daewoo Shipbuild-
ing & Marine Engineering Co., LTD, RINA ICSOT
2009.
Kwak, M. J.; Park J. H.; Choi J. H. and Woo J. H. 2009.
Ultimate Strength Analysis of Stiffened Panel Subject to
Ice Load, Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering
Co., LTD, The Society of Naval Architects of Korea.
MSC, MSC.Dytran User’s Guied, MSC Software, 2006.
Norwegian Technology Center (NTC), NORSOK STAN-
DARD N-004, NTS, 2004.